[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy, you're a bright guy, so who are you trying to kid when you tell me that the numbers coming out of the Ministry of Finance are coming from a politician? They're not, and you know better that to suggest that.

The truth, my friend, is that I am totally surprised that you're arguing something that is some commonly acknowledged and borne out by statistics.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The Ministry isn't an office full of politicians putting out fake numbers to fool the public on a yearly basis.

And yes, data comes from all sources but all our money goes to 1 place. I'll take the word of the place that actually manages our money not some agency paid for by that same Ministry.

I'm not a Liberal. I'm not a Conservative. What more can I say? I'm only reporting the facts. I have no agenda.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

The truth, my friend, is that I am totally surprised that you're arguing something that is some commonly acknowledged and borne out by statistics.

He's pretty much immune to facts Lemmy. If it's on a Conservative blog somewhere, it's gospel, facts be damned.

[Bruce_the_vii]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Bruce,

With all due respect, I'm very well aware what Chretien inherited from that tool Mulroney.

In the end, regardless of how the numbers are spun, the Liberals added to our National debt. That's Canadian history.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Good. However the way you put it is very skewed. Why would you do that? Here on the forum posts are brief and not very clear. The deficit was a huge problem and worry to the population. It was pain. Controlling it was popular.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

i understand that childcare is not a priority for some taxpayers. And, I also understand that you cant always separate the 'why' and 'how' issues, but frankly in the context of our discussion, I see them as 2 different issues.

i've experienced shortages of daycare centers, and I used the money to pay a certified dayhome ( a registered nurse staying at home with her kids, and certified under DeVar Dayhomes). What about it? do we stay so stubborn about 'universal daycare' that parents that utilize dayhomes get the shaft?

If there is a shortage of daycare then the tax break doesn't really address the problem does it?

but is it supposed to? ie is my subsidized operating budget supposed to be paying for new infrastructure( essentually I am getting screwed), so that parents, other parents, get to experience a reduced operating cost from the completed infrastructure?

Do you see why I think its important to 'make before break'?

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you are saying "why should your $100/month child care benefit be taken and used to build facilities for other people so they can get cheap childcare?"

How is that different then me saying why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize your child care expenses? Sounds the same to me.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "make or break". I've not heard that phrase before.

[ASLplease]

if someone has a credit card maxed out, i say it isnt worth helping that person out because they will just max it out again.

i manage my mortgage and credit cards on less money than what i pay in taxes.yet my portion of the national debt is a mere fraction of my personal debt.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

if someone has a credit card maxed out, i say it isnt worth helping that person out because they will just max it out again.

i manage my mortgage and credit cards on less money than what i pay in taxes.yet my portion of the national debt is a mere fraction of my personal debt.

People who need daycare manage the best on what they have and a greater % of their money goes to taxes hence the theory of regressive taxes.

I pay the same taxes you do so why should you get a tax break just because you have children? This argument can be turned to anything as everybody says the same thing about the taxes they pay. The same can be said for health care.

Do you advocate a complete user fee government system?

[ASLplease]

derby you still havent responded to my last post fron yesterday, and it would be a lot more interesting discussion.

[ASLplease]

nm, i just saw it

i got an important date with a dentist, no time to respond until this afternoon

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

The truth, my friend, is that I am totally surprised that you're arguing something that is some commonly acknowledged and borne out by statistics.

He's pretty much immune to facts Lemmy. If it's on a Conservative blog somewhere, it's gospel, facts be damned.

Damn those numbers from the Ministry of Finance. How dare they be so partisan as to post fake numbers for the last 50 years.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you are saying "why should your $100/month child care benefit be taken and used to build facilities for other people so they can get cheap childcare?"

close, im saying that the Liberals are agreeing that i need childcare benfit, but their solution(not mine) is to take aways my current benefit and leave me nothing. then ofcourse, once the infrastructure is built it will be there for all future parents...in my case, I'll have been one of tthe poor slobs that had to endure the period of no benefits what so ever.

$1:

How is that different then me saying why should my tax dollars be used to subsidize your child care expenses? Sounds the same to me.

I understand what you are saying, but the liberals aren't talking about throwing away childcare, they are only talking about reforming it, so you comment - although valid - aren't in the scope of what the Liberals want to do.

$1:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "make or break". I've not heard that phrase before.

the expression that i intended to use is 'make before break'. An example of this that everyone should be familiar with, is your high beems switch on your car......it makes the connection to the high beams, before it breaks the connection to the low beams. If you do it any other way, there is an interuption in your visability while none of your lights are on.

In the case of the Liberal's universal healthcare plan, I think they ought to make their infrastructure before they break the cash flow that parents are currently recieving. If they do it any other way, there WILL be an interuption in benefits.

We know that Liberals dont like the current benefit plan, in fact one of those little b@st@rds actually called it beer money. Well, that beer money is all I got, and all Im saying is dont take it away until you have a way of substituting.

Considering the 2 main reasons for creating a universal childcare plan are 1-high costs, and 2-inadequate infrastructure.......just what do you think will happen for the next few years if the federal government stops sending cheques to parents and starts sending cheques to childcare providers?

Sure, it may work well at improving costs....for the parents that are already in the ststem. but what about the parents that aren't in the system? they get the shaft while the government catches up on infrastructue.

Do you want to venture a guess on who is most affected if we shaft the parents that dont have facilities to take their children to? I'd guess thats going to hit the low income families the hardest. I'm speaking up for them, because frankly, I will do just fine one or another.

Derby, I'm so shocked that you are so determined to support a Liberal plan that will inevitably shaft low income familiess. I thought Liberals were supposed to care more about canadians than the conservatives, I guess that is not true when it comes to childcare.

[FieryVulpine]

After quickly skimming through Derby's posts and watching the word "partisanship" come up, all I have to say is "Hello Mr. Pot!"

[DerbyX]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

After quickly skimming through Derby's posts and watching the word "partisanship" come up, all I have to say is "Hello Mr. Pot!"

Really? Which part? Was it my insistence that the Liberals not be held accountable for the government deficits they did not cause?

Was it my partisanship blinding me when I pointed out that the Liberals did not in fact take over the government in 1992 as the National Post and OTI claimed despite the election having been held on October of 1993?

Was that wrong? Please feel free to point out my partisanship.

BTW, when you show up like you did and contribute nothing but an insult it marks you as a troll.

So to be clear, you are a troll and my partisanship is based on pointing out the truth to conservatives.

Got it.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

close, im saying that the Liberals are agreeing that i need childcare benfit, but their solution(not mine) is to take aways my current benefit and leave me nothing. then ofcourse, once the infrastructure is built it will be there for all future parents...in my case, I'll have been one of tthe poor slobs that had to endure the period of no benefits what so ever.

In other words you don't want all the other "poor slobs" to benefit from your tax dollars. Think about that for a moment.

ASLplease ASLplease:

I understand what you are saying, but the liberals aren't talking about throwing away childcare, they are only talking about reforming it, so you comment - although valid - aren't in the scope of what the Liberals want to do.

No. They are quite valid. The Liberals want affordable day care for everybody and you only want your money back for your self. That seems pretty spot on.

Again, why should you get a tax credit for childcare? My parents and likely yours raised more children on no benefits so what makes you special?

If you aren't willing to have universal childcare why should I be forced to subsidize yours?

BTW, if you think that because its a "tax rebate" its really your money you are wrong since I am being forced to pay more tax for government services then you without that rebate.

ASLplease ASLplease:

the expression that i intended to use is 'make before break'. An example of this that everyone should be familiar with, is your high beems switch on your car......it makes the connection to the high beams, before it breaks the connection to the low beams. If you do it any other way, there is an interuption in your visability while none of your lights are on.

Won't matter since if they say it up front people will bitch and if they do it after people will claim they lied.

ASLplease ASLplease:

In the case of the Liberal's universal healthcare plan, I think they ought to make their infrastructure before they break the cash flow that parents are currently recieving. If they do it any other way, there WILL be an interuption in benefits.

Actually no that is very wrong. First there is no universal health care plan since that is a provincial concern. Second, billing doesn't affect service because of the way its structured.

ASLplease ASLplease:

We know that Liberals dont like the current benefit plan, in fact one of those little b@st@rds actually called it beer money. Well, that beer money is all I got, and all Im saying is dont take it away until you have a way of substituting.

We know they said that because of the massive proof surrounding the EI, welfare and various native subsidies. Want to guess what a lot of that money goes to?

ASLplease ASLplease:

Considering the 2 main reasons for creating a universal childcare plan are 1-high costs, and 2-inadequate infrastructure.......just what do you think will happen for the next few years if the federal government stops sending cheques to parents and starts sending cheques to childcare providers?

I think there will be more childcare providers and more spots.

ASLplease ASLplease:

Sure, it may work well at improving costs....for the parents that are already in the ststem. but what about the parents that aren't in the system? they get the shaft while the government catches up on infrastructue.

The parents who aren't in the system aren't getting what they need now.

ASLplease ASLplease:

Do you want to venture a guess on who is most affected if we shaft the parents that dont have facilities to take their children to? I'd guess thats going to hit the low income families the hardest. I'm speaking up for them, because frankly, I will do just fine one or another.

The low income families are who the program is designed for and just like the US green stamps program we must insure that child care dollars go to child care and simply giving people the money only ensures it doesn't.

ASLplease ASLplease:

Derby, I'm so shocked that you are so determined to support a Liberal plan that will inevitably shaft low income familiess. I thought Liberals were supposed to care more about canadians than the conservatives, I guess that is not true when it comes to childcare.

Only because you yourself have stated a position that shafts them. I want affordable child care just like health care where parents of all stripes can get it.

You however seem to be of the opinion that your tax dollars should not subsidize other peoples childrens expenses.

[PluggyRug]

From a rather secular point of view.....why should my taxes increase for someone else's spawn. The Libs are clutching at the elusive straw once again.