[Tman1]

You mentioned that Martins plan is for those who "need" it, yet this is not weighed out as it should be. Who dictates who needs what? Then again, Harpers plan is to give equally to the wealthy and the poor. If this balances out each other, why not implement this instead of performing a potentially unstable outcome by Martin? Am I saying Martins plan is more or less flawed? No, people who do need it, should get it but if the term 'equal' is not impemented, the dividend of rich and poor will only get wider.

[Banff]

lily lily:

Because welfare is for those who need it. Harper's plan is universal - it goes to the wealthy as well as the poor.

Good point Lily because I laugh at those who think they are not exempt from really truly needing help .... (huh ? did someone say insurance ?)

[Banff]

Banff Banff:

lily lily:

Because welfare is for those who need it. Harper's plan is universal - it goes to the wealthy as well as the poor.

Good point Lily because I laugh at those who think they are not exempt from really truly needing help .... (huh ? did someone say insurance ?)

sorry get rid of the word "not"

[Tman1]

lily lily:

Tman...

All right then. Spread the money around. But if you want true equality, why not give the money to the parents of ALL the children, not just the under 6 set.

Hey, wait a minute. Aren't we discriminating against non-parents? They should be included too, or it's not real equality.

Like I said earlier... spread the money too thin and no-one benefits.

$1:

But if you want true equality, why not give the money to the parents of ALL the children, not just the under 6 set.

Well, I mentioned earlier..funny how it went unnoticed, that if the government gave incentives to have children, why not take them? People want money don't they? I am not speaking about every countries polices but in this country's case, I would hope the birth rate would go UP, not down. If the government wants to pay parents to have children...why not? I don't see what the problem is.

$1:

Like I said earlier... spread the money too thin and no-one benefits.

Or spread the money one way so one benefits more over the other. See how we get the distinction between Harper and Martin?

[Banff]

TMan
I don't see a problem with it either

[Scape]

Regina Regina:

Why should people who don't have kids or have already paid to raise their own kids pay for babysitting services now? If you want them shouldn't you have to look after them yourself?

That like saying after you graduate why should you pay taxes toward schools?

Imagine if we just ditched the education system because it was a huge tax burden and told everyone to be self taught. We then gave a tax break for a computer and internet access. How would we get qualifications for the job market?

A daycare system is not just your neighbors sister looking after the rug rats and could get more people in to the workforce with skills, their taxes are more than what we are losing by not having them working in high paying jobs.

Having it government run is not the end all but the current option is not even remotely close to being up to the demand. I would prefer private industry that was regulated for certification to run larger operations especially in cities. If the government opened up the market and the sold majority shares after it approached making a profit that could spawn a free market competition in an otherwise closed market.

Put another way we have retirement homes now, why can't we have daycare along the same lines?

[Banff]

Scape Scape:

Regina Regina:

Why should people who don't have kids or have already paid to raise their own kids pay for babysitting services now? If you want them shouldn't you have to look after them yourself?

That like saying after you graduate why should you pay taxes toward schools?

Imagine if we just ditched the education system because it was a huge tax burden and told everyone to be self taught. We then gave a tax break for a computer and internet access. How would we get qualifications for the job market?

A daycare system is not just your neighbors sister looking after the rug rats and could get more people in to the workforce with skills, their taxes are more than what we are losing by not having them working in high paying jobs.

Having it government run is not the end all but the current option is not even remotely close to being up to the demand. I would prefer private industry that was regulated for certification to run larger operations especially in cities. If the government opened up the market and the sold majority shares after it approached making a profit that could spawn a free market competition in an otherwise closed market.

Put another way we have retirement homes now, why can't we have daycare along the same lines?

not quite but almost > I believe the cost of seniors was a spawning ground for this insanely either or private/gov. run expensive child care program .... in short form >>>> the kids don't wanna take care of their own folks (once again ....huh? did someone say insurance?)

[Tman1]

lily lily:

Funny how it went unnoticed...

Jheeeesh! Apparently I missed a point or 2 of yours. Sorry 'bout that. I'm having a little issue with my eyes right now.

Why should the government pay people to have kids? Someone who would have a baby or 3 for the windfall they'd receive isn't the sort of person you want to encourage to have kids in the first place. Increasing the birth rate isn't THAT important to me - I'd rather see people have babies because they truly want to be parents.

You know something... I did address this point earlier.

$1:

Or spread the money one way so one benefits more over the other. See how we get the distinction between Harper and Martin?

Yes, I do.
Tell me... which "one" is Martin looking to benefit?




I

$1:

Jheeeesh! Apparently I missed a point or 2 of yours. Sorry 'bout that. I'm having a little issue with my eyes right now.

Well, Im not referring only to you on that particular point am I?

$1:

Why should the government pay people to have kids? Someone who would have a baby or 3 for the windfall they'd receive isn't the sort of person you want to encourage to have kids in the first place. Increasing the birth rate isn't THAT important to me - I'd rather see people have babies because they truly want to be parents.

Why should the government pay people to have kids? Increase an already stagnating population, perhaps give poorer familes a chance to get money instead of feeding off soup kitchens to name a few..or couple. Give them a sense of worth instead of putting hats on the ground and begging for pennies...Of course increasing the population wouldn't be in your best interests, why would it? Explain why Western birth rates are declining? Because they are too concerned on being "truly" good parents? Come on.....

$1:

You know something... I did address this point earlier.

You did? Sheeeesh must be something wrong with my eyes...

$1:

Yes, I do.
Tell me... which "one" is Martin looking to benefit?

You do? You said you didn't like either platform yet you seem to delve more in the direction on who "needs" it more. Isn't that the platform of Martin?

Before you start picking apart my posts, I defer to you in experience in matters of child rearing and I am merely speaking my piece on what I believe in or rather make a point in.

[Banff]

lily lily:

$1:

Before you start picking apart my posts, I defer to you in experience in matters of child rearing and I am merely speaking my piece on what I believe in or rather make a point in.

Of course.

However... I may have experience in parenting... but that doesn't make me any more or less right than you.


The fact that I'm a woman... that's what makes me right.

I agree , I like the idea of it going directly to the parents too but not because you're a woman

[Tman1]

lily lily:

$1:

Well, Im not referring only to you am I?

You should know by now that it's all about me.

$1:

Why should the government pay people to have kids? Increase an already stagnating population, perhaps give poorer familes a chance to get money instead of feeding off soup kitchens to name a few..or couple. Give them a sense of worth instead of putting hats on the ground and begging for pennies...

If a family is so poor they're feeding off soup kitchens and begging for pennies... do you really think paying them a hundred bucks a month to have a baby is a good idea?

$1:

Of course increasing the population wouldn't be in your best interests, why would it? Explain why Western birth rates are declining? Because they are too concerned on being "truly" good parents? Come on.....

The population can increase or decrease... my best interests, whatever they are, are irrelevant.

I think people should have babies because they want them... not because the gov't is paying them to do their part in increasing the numbers.

By the way - I've done my part... have you?

$1:

You do? You said you didn't like either platform yet you seem to delve more in the direction on who "needs" it more. Isn't that the platform of Martin?

Once again... I don't like either platform, as I don't think people should be paid because they have kids. However... no-one seemed to accept that answer, so I tried to explain what I liked and didn't like about each plan. Guess what happened? No surprise really... but people assumed that I prefer Martin's platform over Harper's. It doesn't seem to matter that I said I liked the money going directly to the parents. That would be Harper's idea, right?

Is it that difficult to comprehend that some people look beyond the party and look at the ideas?

$1:

If a family is so poor they're feeding off soup kitchens and begging for pennies... do you really think paying them a hundred bucks a month to have a baby is a good idea?

You know, I understand that dilemma but a hundred bucks a month for a poor family goes a looooooong way. Is it not a good idea? Why not? I already mentioned other cultural aspects, it's fortunate that this is Canada.. trust me.

$1:

The population can increase or decrease... my best interests, whatever they are, are irrelevant.

Yes, the population can increase and decrease, it depends what what methods of procreation there is in the said country..isn't that what I said? Your best interests are your business, I never denied that. You mentioned people shouldn't be encouraged to have children if only for the pay cheque, perhaps that is in their best interests eh?

$1:

By the way - I've done my part... have you?

Heh nope. Of course I could be considered too young in "responsible" terms but some unfortunate and (irresponsible) people do not have that luxury right?

$1:

I think people should have babies because they want them... not because the gov't is paying them to do their part in increasing the numbers.

Not disagreeing with you there. I think you are misconstruing my position here. I am merely saying that if people have the incentive to procreate and increase the population, they should take advantage of that. Nothing wrong with that, no shame. I am speaking in the case of Canada and I already mentioned a growing elderly population in context with the young population.

$1:

Once again... I don't like either platform, as I don't think people should be paid because they have kids.

Already explained this. Why would nobody want extra money regardless of the matter? You can have kids if you want to be a "true" parent, the bonus would be money....

You know, it's probably just me but your position on the matter is still less than clear.

$1:

It doesn't seem to matter that I said I liked the money going directly to the parents. That would be Harper's idea, right?

So you like Harpers plan...

[Regina]

Scape Scape:

Regina Regina:

Why should people who don't have kids or have already paid to raise their own kids pay for babysitting services now? If you want them shouldn't you have to look after them yourself?

That like saying after you graduate why should you pay taxes toward schools?

Imagine if we just ditched the education system because it was a huge tax burden and told everyone to be self taught. We then gave a tax break for a computer and internet access. How would we get qualifications for the job market?

A daycare system is not just your neighbors sister looking after the rug rats and could get more people in to the workforce with skills, their taxes are more than what we are losing by not having them working in high paying jobs.

Having it government run is not the end all but the current option is not even remotely close to being up to the demand. I would prefer private industry that was regulated for certification to run larger operations especially in cities. If the government opened up the market and the sold majority shares after it approached making a profit that could spawn a free market competition in an otherwise closed market.

Put another way we have retirement homes now, why can't we have daycare along the same lines?

Actually you don't pay anything when you go to school. You do pay after though......and you should. Having children is a choice, therefore it is up to you to be responsible for them. There are geared for income daycares so even if there's financial hardships, you don't pay the going rate. Besides you can't compare the school system to babysitting anyway.

[Tman1]

Yep. To close the issue, there are plenty of grown ups who "think" they can make it on their own with children but unfortunately they can't. Not everybody is so well off like you or others. Hey, perhaps they need the money which is what I've been saying from the government. Yep, you're a grown up who can take care of her or his self, good for you. I have a lottery ticket of 5 million dollars but I don't need it because I can take care of myself, I'm well off.

Do I understand? Nope, and I probably never will but my opinion on this matter stands. This country needs a population rise and what better way to give loving, warm parents the incentive to create more children. Does this sound Communist? Socialist? Probably, I am neither but I understand their values and Canada needs more young people. I'm sure you can agree with that.

[Tman1]

Ever watch Reba?

[Scape]

Regina Regina:

Having children is a choice, therefore it is up to you to be responsible for them.

Not my point and I can't argue a belief system.

Canada has retiring boomers, a booming energy sector and a declining birth rate. I guess your all for immigration from China if your not for supporting home grown then.

I am not in favor of welfare crack babies getting a handout but we can't end up like stagnate France either. We need skilled labour and I would rather it be from here 1st. We do have a choice as a nation. We can either stagnate and disappear like dust in the wind or we can lay the foundation to build a nation. National daycare is more efficient then haphazard access we have now.

[Banff]

I think I get what she means quite clearly now , because like me I really am cautious about where that $100.00 (meager) proposal is going to come from and if it will be chewed up so quickly in rising costs that in a short time it will vanish like it didn't even exist . That money has to make a difference or its waste . If a heavy tax burden against fees cannot be implemented with it it will become a waste very quickly and will be no better than 4 evenings a month for a babysitter so neither the Libs or Cons have a better way in my personal skepticisms . The Liberals taxed far to heavily by way of the voice of the nation and not entirely on their own and we all remember that Mulrooney was handed the same treatment so he offered the old " You want it ? Well then here , have some GST ! " Happy Now Folks ? " GST is something the public wouldn't let the Gov. get rid of . Its not entirely the fault of any party .
Trudeau spoiled the nation and the public ran with it noone has had much of a chance since , especially Joe and Kim . Chretien was just a last chance dream to get Trudeaus early years back. I believe this country has hit a brick wall and for those who think the conservatives are the answer is going to find themselves in tears . We need someone strong because if this country is going to grasp into a stronger future many people are going to have to get hurt and even offended . King Ralph and even Peter Lougheeds jobs were easy because of Albertas wealth but many times Ralph had to use the old line " Sorry Folks , No Money , No Funny " but always had the opportunity to say just wait and things will get better and the mere wealth of Alberta successfully protected him from being a liar . We are confronted with everything from WTO , Environment , Nafta , Regional Minoritizing etc. as added features to complications. Too much bureaucrazy right down to the stupid little Bi laws is insane so I say to the Muslims , Jehovah Witness Jewish etc who have ever taken this plight to Canadian Gov . I would like to wish you a Belated Merry Christmas and the guy in Red Deer who is trying to force an environment levy on canadians of 25 cents per plastic grocery bag ... Go F**k yourself because its only related to your invention for profit . ..... Now where were we......