# The Day My Country Died



## Swissboy (Feb 6, 2005)

Blinded by the light...

There goes 2 Billion a year to piss away giving money directly to parents. Because we ALL know that EVERY parent is 100% responsible. Yeah, easily accessable public childcare sucks, espcially since you can't spend that 10$ on cigarettes.

There goes womens rights on abortion and the right to be YOURSELF (gay,black,white,disabled). A minority is a MINORITY. Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about protecting them, but who needs gays right? YEP SCREW the Charter of Rights, nobody needs it.

Environment? forget about it. Even though Kyoto emissions rose in Canada lets DROP support becaue we want to spend BILLIONS on other plans. Let's not work with the international community...YEAH I hear you, because they have NO influence OR respect from the 2ND LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.

GST rebates. You need to have a SURPLUS and be economically stable in Ottawa to have cuts...have fun spending the governments money because in a few years time the damage will need to be repaired.

Quebec now is happy...yeah another referendem creeps into the wind....oh and don't forget BUDDY BUSH.

We don't need an army. We don't need a Liberal government in a spending scandal...BUT we do need to keep our economical stability. 

This is the day my country died.

Swissboy


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

The country didn't die, It just went to sleep,
Harper is just a nightmare that will go away when we wake up this fall.

D


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Good grief.. you really bought the fear mongering.... hook, line and sinker. I'm so sorry the Liberals have done this to you. They should be ashamed!!!!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Please keep in mind that we voted in a minority Conservative government, and not George Bush with both wings of Congress. There is too much diversity in the House of Commons to have Harper set forth a neocon agenda unchecked. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As I told my wife this morning, the nighttime darkness turned into a beautiful sunrise here in St.John's, along with the transition of governments ...... all without troops on the street or much fanfare.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Please keep in mind that we voted in a minority Conservative government, and not George Bush with both wings of Congress. There is too much diversity in the House of Commons to have Harper set forth a neocon agenda unchecked. We shall see.


George Bush likes Stevie Harper and his policies...... 'Nuff said...


----------



## Swissboy (Feb 6, 2005)

adagio said:


> Good grief.. you really bought the fear mongering.... hook, line and sinker. I'm so sorry the Liberals have done this to you. They should be ashamed!!!!


I am not a fish. I did not fall for the bait. I read and figured out who and where this Harper character came from and past ideologies and associations. 

Want to know more about Harper's associations? I found this an interesting read: 

http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=8


----------



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

The man has been Prime Minister for less than 24 hours and all I hear is it's the beginning of the end - the worst is yet to come - fear monger here, fear monger there ... 

Give the man a chance, I'm sure that he can do much better than the thieves that occupied the position for way too long.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray, Bush may like Harper and his policies, but 63% of the people did not vote for Harper. He cannot do what Bush has done in the US. As well, now even certain of the Republicans in Congress are trying to distance themselves from a "lame-duck" president, in that many are up for reelection this November. We shall see.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It's going to be a dog year (The year of the Dog, How fitting)
The Con's are going to be giving it to the dog all summer.

I predict it'll be a hot summer too, In more ways than one.

D


----------



## Swissboy (Feb 6, 2005)

simon said:


> The man has been Prime Minister for less than 24 hours and all I hear is it's the beginning of the end - the worst is yet to come - fear monger here, fear monger there ...
> 
> Give the man a chance, I'm sure that he can do much better than the thieves that occupied the position for way too long.


Yes 24 hours as our Prime Minister is a disgrace. This is not "fear mongering" as you say, this is just out right COMMON SENSE.

It is common sense for somebody (Harper) to throw money at the people and for the people to bow and believe scandals in the Government have NEVER EVER happened before. But make no mistake, it is NOT common sense to take AWAY rights and place your vote for a former MEMBER of the National Citizens Coalition. Read up about them. YES, they ARE real and Harper WAS a part of them.

In Indiana Jones the greed caused Donovan to choose a RICH beautiful looking cup and he paid the price for his mistake. Jones took the rugged, beat up and bruised cup and was granted eternal life. 

If you can't understand the history, then you will be binded by something because it "looks good".

Now ask yourself:
Would you trade money from Harper for Rights of individuals in Canada? If you read about up about what I mentioned then your COMMON SENSE clicks in...and FAST.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Swissboy said:


> It is common for somebody (Harper) to throw money at the people and for the people to bow and believe scandals in the Government have NEVER happened before. But make no mistake, it is NOT common sense to take AWAY rights and place your vote for a former MEMBER of the National Citizens Coalition.


I predict that Harper will not pursue the Liberal "scandals" too hard - it's a straw man erected to elicit hate towards the Liberals by calling them all crooked.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Swissboy said:


> Yes 24 hours as our Prime Minister is a disgrace. This is not "fear mongering" as you say, this is just out right COMMON SENSE.


:baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby:


----------



## ThirtyOne (Jan 18, 2003)

Relax.

I don't like the Conservatives either. However, we live in a free and democratic country where the people just reasserted their right to a peaceful change in government. We should be proud and happy about that.

Next, the man hasn't done anything yet. He hasn't even been sworn in as Prime Minister. When he does get asked to form a government by Mme Jean, it will be a weak minority government that requires, the support of at least the Bloc or the Liberals in order to pass any form of legislation. Are the Conservatives going to strip any rights from us in this situation? No. Plain and simple. That's why our system works. It is something the Liberals had forgotten. Had the Conservatives won a majority, then you might have a reason to be worried. As it stands, Stephen Harper's three priorities are going to be: passing an ethics and accountability package to clean up Parliament and the way politics is done in Ottawa, finding a way to write a budget that incorporates significant tax cuts while being acceptable to either the Liberals or the Bloc and the NDP, and making sure he and his caucus don't do anything drastically stupid to squander the chance they've been given.

The ethics package will pass. The Bloc, NDP and Conservatives (and even many Liberals) are strongly in favour of it. The budget will pass too, because the Liberals will not want to go into another election this summer without a leader, or with a lame duck Paul Martin. And as for the third priority? That means no votes on abortion, or same sex marriage, or martial law, or selling all our water to the Americans, or any other scary situation you've bought into.

Change in government is good. It is healthy. It is absolutely, 100% necessary in any democracy. You may not like the Conservatives, and that's fair, neither do I, but I give them credit for saving this country from a deeper malaise. We'll see two or three years of a very centrist Conservative government, and by then, I hope, the Liberals will have sorted out their civil war, picked a new leader, and written a new platform of policies that will reignite the passion and activism that party used to have. When that day comes, I'll be happy to vote for them. Until then, I'll enjoy living in a country who just suffered a "regime change" without suicide bombers, air strikes, or kidnappings. In fact, the worst we have to look forward to is a couple of weeks of torturous post-game analysis by pundits on TV, the newspapers and in blogs.

The sky is still where we left it.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Well said, ThirtyOne !!!!!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I see the election results jsut the opposite of the OP.
In fact, in my mind they couldn't be better.
Conservative minority weaker than the Liberal one was. Even the Conservatives+NDP+1 independant don't have enough votes to pass legislation, they need the Librals or Bloc to do so.
Would also make a vote of non-confidence a lot easiert to pass than with the last Liberal government should it come to that.
And the Bloc, they were looking for 50%+ of popular vote in Quebec, got 42% which is a setback for them as far as heir Separatist agenda is concerned.

The thing that is way out of whack is representation by population, it was probably always like that with the Bloc. They get 10% of the national vote and 50 out of 300+ seats, abour 20 seats too many.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I don't like the Conservatives either. However, we live in a free and democratic country where the people just reasserted their right to a peaceful change in government. We should be proud and happy about that.


funny that you never read comments similar to this one from macnutt et al when the cons lost

give me pragmatists over idealogues any day of the week

as for election results leave to canadians to make it all work out in the end

harpo won but with a minority where he will have to work with the bloc or the liberals
harpo won't be able to please his neo con masters and watching him stick handle thru a very minority gov't will be fun
bloc and seperatists lost popular votes - stick that in your referrendum hat
layton gets more seats and votes but is no longer king maker
alberta gets their PM, but he won't be able to do what they want and then watch them complain about Ottawa

gotta love those canadian voters - we do have a sense of humour after all


----------



## Roland (Aug 15, 2002)

I agree with krs.

It'll be interesting to see how the Conservatives actually pass any of their controversial legislation with such a weak minority.

The pundits on CTV said the government would only last a year. Here's hoping it at least lasts that long. Heck I'd vote for an NDP minority next if we went to the polls sooner than that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It is obvious that some of us can see the future clearly.

Excellent post ThirtyOne! :clap:


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Roland said:


> I agree with krs.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how the Conservatives actually pass any of their controversial legislation with such a weak minority.
> 
> The pundits on CTV said the government would only last a year. Here's hoping it at least lasts that long. Heck I'd vote for an NDP minority next if we went to the polls sooner than that.


the liberals won't push for an election without a leadership convention and policy review

the bloc will be stinging from the message sent to them by quebec voters (less popular vote)
and the ndp can't afford a quick election - contrary to the cbc analysts i think the ndp was the big loser last night
from king maker to 3rd banana


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Like krs, I believe that the results were pretty good:

1) Canadians get to "Test Drive" the Tories with a minority government, rather than giving an inexperienced party a majority.

2) The breakthrough in Quebec, more seats in Ontario, and the fact that the Tories won a minority should have a moderating effect on the party so we shouldn't have to worry about "Soldiers. With Guns. On Our Streets." to force some sort of scary hidden agenda on us.

3) The Liberals get a "time out" to rebuid their party. Maybe this will help get rid of their "culture of entitlement".

4) The West wanted in and the West got in. Maybe this will help get rid of their "culture of grievance".

5) Long term, we are left with two mainstream national parties that both have a realistic shot at forming a government. This is a big improvement over the Liberals and a bunch of protest parties in my books.

All in all, pretty good results IMHO. And like ThirtyOne and others have pointed out, I'm glad that we live in a country where all of this can go down without car bombs driving into government offices!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> 2) The breakthrough in Quebec, more seats in Ontario, and the fact that the Tories won a minority should have a moderating effect on the party so we shouldn't have to worry about "Soldiers. With Guns. On Our Streets." to force some sort of scary hidden agenda on us.


How much of that breakthrough in QC is due to a desire to punish the Libs without really embracing the Bloc?


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

rgray said:


> George Bush likes Stevie Harper and his policies...... 'Nuff said...


It does not follow that because George Bush "likes" something, that it is not in our best interests. It is very poor argument, which is a sweeping over generalization.

Your simply applealing to George Bush's lack of popularity among us Canadian's to somehow influence our view of Harper.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

Although the thought of a Conservative govt. is appalling to me, at least it is a Con MINORITY & not majority. This means, just as it did for the Libs, that they do not have unfettered ability to pass legislation without broad support. They will have to pay attention & court the other parties on some level – issue by issue, because I don't see an overarching coalition emerging. Their ethics package will likely pass, with broad support. Their budget? – well, that's when things will get interesting, & I think we will see just how much the Cons understand the word "co-operation". Their entire agenda during the Lib minority govt. consisted of trying to bring govt. down. Let's see what they are willing/able to do to shore up their own govt. And see just how much the combined opposition parties are willing to co-operate with each other to keep govt. functional and insure that the varied interests of the country are represented.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jdurston said:


> It does not follow that because George Bush "likes" something, that it is not in our best interests. It is very poor argument, which is a sweeping over generalization.


No but emulating the US is not either. Harper shows a lack of imagination and seems a parody of GW Bush. Kyoto, tax cuts to the rich, promising to the poor but really giving to the rich, tough talk on crime and trying to instil a society of fear, repressive towards minorities and women's rights....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> How much of that breakthrough in QC is due to a desire to punish the Libs without really embracing the Bloc?


I have no idea.

Regardless of the reason for the breakthrough, I see it as a positive outcome as it gives the Tories a chance to prove themselves as a mainstream federalist party in QC.

If they do a good job in QC I can see them holding on to or even growing their support next time round. If they blow it, they'll go back to being a regional protest party which wouldn't be good for either them or Canada IMHO.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> How much of that breakthrough in QC is due to a desire to punish the Libs without really embracing the Bloc?


Absolutely none in my opinion.
People in Quebec who voted Liberal last election and didn't this time "to punish them" could have just as well voted NDP (or even Bloc) or 'refused the ballot' rather than vote Conservative.
I don't even think that the 42% popular vote for the Bloc in Quebec means that 42% of Quebecers want Separation. They just want more out of the Federal government - this fiscal imbalance the Bloc keeps talking about.
Can someone perhaps elaborate what this fiscal imbalance is the Bloc keeps harping about? I always thought Quebec was one of the provinces that receives more from the federal coffers than it contributes.
And BTW - I would assume after Quebec separation - should it ever come to that - Quebec will receive nothing from the Federal coffers.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> People in Quebec who voted Liberal last election and didn't this time "to punish them" could have just as well voted NDP (or even Bloc) or 'refused the ballot' rather than vote Conservative.
> I don't even think that the 42% popular vote for the Bloc in Quebec means that 42% of Quebecers want Separation.


This election the Bloc targeted key Liberal ridings - and it shows.
Not every vote for the Bloc was a vote for separation. The Cons gave federalist supporters in Quebec a chance to show that. NDP was rather absent in terms of visibility in Quebec. Where the Cons did well are ridings that have strong ADQ support - which just happened to help with their organizers. So maybe the Cons can work at coalitions.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I think moderate legislation only will get passed. Candadians gave the Conservative party only a small minority. The way I see it is that the majority of Canadians and seats are still left leaning. This will be another parliament where the parties will have to work together for the interests of ALL Canadians.

I sure hope the $1200 day care thing doesn't get passed. That's retarded. People will now get even more money for popping out kids that can't afford to have (money wise and time wise).


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> I sure hope the $1200 day care thing doesn't get passed. That's retarded. People will now get even more money for popping out kids that can't afford to have (money wise and time wise).





> The Conservatives’ plan for a “Choice in Child Care Allowance” is seriously flawed. Because the new program will trigger reductions in federal and provincial/territorial income-tested benefits and increases in income taxes, most families will end up with less – for modest-income families in the $30,000-$40,000 range, much less - than the gross $1,200 annual payment for every child under 6. The Child Care Allowance also will favour one-earner couples over single parents and two-earner families. The proposed scheme is really a child benefit, not a child care program. Caledon contends that it would be better to invest in further increases to the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit, a modern and effective social program that suffers from none of the failings of the proposed Choice in Child Care Allowance


http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/564ENG.pdf
http://www.caledoninst.org/


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Swissboy said:


> Blinded by the light...
> 
> There goes 2 Billion a year to piss away giving money directly to parents. Because we ALL know that EVERY parent is 100% responsible. Yeah, easily accessable public childcare sucks, espcially since you can't spend that 10$ on cigarettes.


Wow, quit the histrionics. If you believe in Canada you believe in democracy with all its benefits and pitfalls. Take defeat as graciously as you take victory. 

Stop demonizing parents. It's time to move on.



> There goes womens rights on abortion and the right to be YOURSELF (gay,black,white,disabled). A minority is a MINORITY. Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about protecting them, but who needs gays right? YEP SCREW the Charter of Rights, nobody needs it.


Let's be crystal clear: No one is talking about abortion except for Liberals, the Charter wasn't an issue till Martin said he wanted to fiddle with it, and as for Gay rights, the only issue brought forward was the possiblity of a free vote on homsexual marriage. 

Get a grip.



> Environment? forget about it. Even though Kyoto emissions rose in Canada lets DROP support becaue we want to spend BILLIONS on other plans. Let's not work with the international community...YEAH I hear you, because they have NO influence OR respect from the 2ND LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD.


We're not meeting our Kyoto commitments now, let's get a program in place that's good for Canada and the environment.



> GST rebates. You need to have a SURPLUS and be economically stable in Ottawa to have cuts...have fun spending the governments money because in a few years time the damage will need to be repaired.


Um, I'm not even going to dignify this with a length answer, but here it is. The only way to give a tax cut to everyone that they can see and helps low income earners who don't pay income tax is a cut to the GST. Wake up.


> Quebec now is happy...yeah another referendem creeps into the wind....oh and don't forget BUDDY BUSH.


As for Quebec, it was the sponsorship scandal that bouyed their fortunes and Tory's who stemmed it. Think about it.

Also the Bush point doesn't deserve a response.


> We don't need an army. We don't need a Liberal government in a spending scandal...BUT we do need to keep our economical stability.
> 
> This is the day my country died.
> Swissboy


That last part convinced me you're a fool. 

Canada didn't die, stop your whinning and start talking postively. I'm small c conservative and I'm big enough to admit this wasn't a responding victory. Nor is it an overwhelming change.

For God's sake man, get a grip!


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

NBiBooker said:


> The only way to give a tax cut to everyone that they can see and helps low income earners who don't pay income tax is a cut to the GST. Wake up.


Low income earners already get a GST rebate. Why not raise the minimum income tax exemption instead? It hasn't increased in ages. The great thing about the GST is that it's unavoidable. Even Paul Martin's ships flying other flags have to pay it  Cutting the GST is too simplistic and expensive, and I don't see how it will help the economy. Cutting GST gives the most money to the people who spend the most money. How is that an efficient way to help the poor?


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I voted liberal, mainly to support a {seemingly} honest backbencher who has represented his riding more than just being a Martin follower.

I would never vote Conservative anyway, but am satisfied with the election results. Harper is not charasmatic enough to be scary for any reason other than his inexperience.

Until he accomplishes anything, I'll see him as mouthwash being used to clean the taste of the last 12 years out of our collective mouths. Despite the back to back surpluses, and general good government {sponsorship, not withstanding}, the liberals did an OK job.

That being said, a dozen years is long enough for any party to stay in power.
My main criticism of Harper is that it took 2 elections for him to convince the public to give him a minority. Clearly to me, He is not the right man for the job.

A strong leader should have been able to take a majority when Cretien stepped down at the near height of the scandal...

Harper can have a year or so while the Liberals regroup. It is not fair that he will probably have that little time to prove himself, but that's politics...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Getting the GST facts straight.*



elmer said:


> Low income earners already get a GST rebate. Why not raise the minimum income tax exemption instead? It hasn't increased in ages. The great thing about the GST is that it's unavoidable. Even Paul Martin's ships flying other flags have to pay it  Cutting the GST is too simplistic and expensive, and I don't see how it will help the economy. Cutting GST gives the most money to the people who spend the most money. How is that an efficient way to help the poor?


Here! Here! That's the truth. Cutting the GST won't help the poor stretch their grocery bucks further.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

1- High income earners don't need it and shouldn't recieve it, but will

2- It's not enough to allow one parent to stay home, even though the whole point of the Con policy is that parents are better than daycare officials

3- It will pay for private daycare, instead of a national program, but it is questionable if it is even enough for private daycare

4- Many bad parents will guzzle it... a very significant number which the Cons chose to white wash

All in all it seems like it was not well thought out and more of an ideological reaction rather than a real policy which can defend itself. 

Baby bonuses are meant to increase the natural growth rate, but don't work. National childcare programs have been shown to work, very slightly at present, to increase birth. This however is more like a baby bonus.

As for abortion, Canada is a rare nation with no law on it. Our abortion law was originally struck down by the Supreme Court because the wording of the charter/law was ill defined, and they wanted it fixed. They did not rule on the rights of women or the philosophy of the matter. One of the judges actually said they believed the majority of Canadians were anti-abortion and did not anticipate that parliament would not fill the gap due to contraversey, effectively legalising abortions (not their original intention, at least for the majority of the court). Most countries, if not all in fact, do have limits on which abortions taxpayers pay for, and limits on the age at which a baby can be aborted (i.e. 9 months). Canada is the odd one out in this regard. I'm not anti-abortion, but I'd like to see some regulation and debate, not fear mongering... that we'll become like the rest of the civilised world lol


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ATTN: All people freaking out about a Conservative government.

Shaddap!

They haven't done anything yet. They haven't even formed a government yet.

When they do something bad, then you can complain. Until then, SHADDAP!

You don't know how things will turn out. You are guessing. You are making assumptions. You are pulling facts out of your ass.

Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a country where the democratically elected party actually gets a chance to prove itself?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and people don't get a change to speak out?
or only if they support the cons?

seems a little bit repressive to me


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I'm at a loss about the cross-section of ehmac membership political affiliation.
More than 36% of the people in this country voted Conservative, but hardly any of those seem to be ehmac members - odd.

CON	36.25%
LIB 30.22%
BQ 10.48%
NDP 17.49%
IND .52%
OTH 5.05%


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

We're mac people. We think different.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

krs said:


> I'm at a loss about the cross-section of ehmac membership political affiliation.
> More than 36% of the people in this country voted Conservative, but hardly any of those seem to be ehmac members - odd.
> 
> CON	36.25%
> ...


Really? There are some very vocal Con supporters here* and there seem to be a few NDP supporters also....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> 4- Many bad parents will guzzle it... a very significant number which the Cons chose to white wash


I don't think this is a white wash, I think it represents a fundamental difference between the Left and Right.

The Right tends to think that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and people should be trusted to spend their own money wisely. Most folks will, though no doubt there are a few that will squander the bonus on "Beer and Popcorn".

The Left tends to think govenment has a larger role to play in the creation of a "Just Society", so they will try to protect people from themselves even if they have to set up a large bureaucracy to do it.

I really think that both sides believe that they are doing what's best for the country, they are just looking at the same problem from different angles.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> I really think that both sides believe that they are doing what's best for the country, they are just looking at the same problem from different angles.


Exactly. Good post.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and people don't get a change to speak out?
> or only if they support the cons?
> seems a little bit repressive to me


Sure, they can speak out. But there isn't anything to speak out about yet. Just look at the title of this thread. "The Day My Country Died". What facts is this statement based on?


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

"The Right tends to think that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and people should be trusted to spend their own money wisely. Most folks will, though no doubt there are a few that will squander the bonus on "Beer and Popcorn"." -penguinboy

But, it is not only their money. It is all of our money. Mis-spending this, if it is meant for children, is like welfare fraud. I don't think we should just give money to one group of society... with a goal in mind, but no regulations to reach the goal. The money comes from all of us, the majority with no kids. Why would we not want to make sure it serves its purpose? I trust my own judgement with money and rather not support people who misuse this. 

This will also be going to many parents who already can afford to stay at home, and do not require it for its supposed goal. We will all be subsidizing a quasi tax break for the people in this situation. I imagine the majority of us don't want to do that with our money either.

It's a blanket policy, not taking all realities into account... we don't need a large government body to do that.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> But, it is not only their money. It is all of our money.


A pretty clear indication of different points of view. Less taxes paid = the people's money. Resistance if futile.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

unfortunately i won't be eligible for a child tax credit
i already pay school tax and don't go to school nor have children
perhaps i need to apply for a single person tax credit?
where is that form on the web?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm in the same situation. Foregetting where tax money comes from and assuming it is the collective's money is a huge mistake. That doesn't mean social programs can't happen, but the attitude is, right off the bat, plain wrong.


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

PenguinBoy said:


> IThe Right tends to think that people should take responsibility for their own actions, and people should be trusted to spend their own money wisely.


That's not Right Wing. That's Libertarian.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

Stephen Harper is a social libertarian.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ...i already pay school tax and don't go to school nor have children perhaps i need to apply for a single person tax credit?
> where is that form on the web?


Even if your *never* have children, you can think of your school taxes as prepayment for the government services you will use in your old age, and which will be funded by the taxes paid by today's children several years from now.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

I wonder how many Canadians actually new why they voted Conservative? Or did they just vote "any" other party besides the Liberals because they didn't want the Liberals back in power?

You have to wonder...


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

I'm sure that's the case.

"A pretty clear indication of different points of view. Less taxes paid = the people's money. Resistance if futile." -beej

What do you mean?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> I wonder how many Canadians actually new why they voted Conservative? Or did they just vote "any" other party besides the Liberals because they didn't want the Liberals back in power?
> 
> You have to wonder...


This seems like it was the case with many.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> This seems like it was the case with many.


:baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: 

You can't guess what a voters intentions are. The fact is 37.7% of the people in this country voted Conservative. They wanted them to win.

The Alliance and Tory vote combined used to get around 37%. So, the Conservatives just regained their traditional base.

Your thought process isn't consistent. On one hand you say many Conservative votes were in protest against the Liberals and for some reason don't count as support. Then, on the other hand, you openly accept protest votes against the Conservatives and accept this as being support for the Liberals or NDP. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby: :baby:
> 
> You can't guess what a voters intentions are. The fact is 37.7% of the people in this country voted Conservative. They wanted them to win.
> 
> .


The cons received 36.3% stop pumping up the number!


----------



## mbaldwin (Jan 20, 2003)

According to a poll, the majority of Conservative support was for the sake of change and not for belief in the Conservative platform.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You can't guess what a voters intentions are. The fact is 37.7% of the people in this country voted Conservative. They wanted them to win.
> 
> The Alliance and Tory vote combined used to get around 37%. So, the Conservatives just regained their traditional base.
> 
> Your thought process isn't consistent. On one hand you say many Conservative votes were in protest against the Liberals and for some reason don't count as support. Then, on the other hand, you openly accept protest votes against the Conservatives and accept this as being support for the Liberals or NDP. You can't have it both ways.


No Vandave, the Cons used a campaign of deceit and lies by repeating ad nauseam that the Libs were all criminals.

What I said that in Quebec not all are separatist. Voters pissed off at the Libs went towards the Cons (with the help of the ADQ and the provincial Libs). 
The Cons are on a very short leash. 

As the poll says many voted Cons for the sake of change. 
You still have fortress Montreal-Toronto and Vancouver where the Cons made very little inroads. Some seats have been exchanged and overall, it's the same old.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> No Vandave, the Cons used a campaign of deceit and lies by repeating ad nauseam that the Libs were all criminals.


Incorrect! They were right! No lies involved.

Liberals are now history. Crooks. Corrupt. Colour them gone.

No leader. Wasted. Done. Finito. Ended. Over, as in get over it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> Incorrect! They were right! No lies involved.
> 
> Liberals are now history. Crooks. Corrupt. Colour them gone.
> 
> No leader. Wasted. Done. Finito. Ended. Over, as in get over it.


Wow SINC, hitting the NeoCon KoolAid I see.....
Why do NeoCons keep up this straw man charade?
You are sounding like a MacNutt now - 
So Fortress Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver stands (fortress is what the Calgary Sun called it), yet the Liberals are finished?
Conservative lost numbers in the East, Central Canada and BC, yet the Liberals are finished?
SINC, you have so many double standards (voting Liberal one day, then Con, one day Harper is a bum, the next he's your God) and prejudices (all Liberals are criminals even after being cleared by judicial inquiry). 
Thank God the Cons are on a short leash... 


Maybe the title of the Thread is more accurate than I though - if this is the kind of fearmongering a la George Bush we have to live with....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> "A pretty clear indication of different points of view. Less taxes paid = the people's money. Resistance if futile." -beej
> 
> What do you mean?


Viewing a tax cut as using 'all of our money' and wanting to dictate how it is spent is a pretty clear indication of a different point of view. This is the collectivist starting point. As a person who leans strongly towards a more individualist starting point, I see it as an individual's money, from which the government takes some amount to do 'good', but must always keep in mind that it is taking money from individuals (not some collectively donated-to fund). 



Sun Dog said:


> "But, it is not only their money. It is all of our money. Mis-spending this, if it is meant for children, is like welfare fraud. I don't think we should just give money to one group of society... with a goal in mind, but no regulations to reach the goal. The money comes from all of us, the majority with no kids."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Incorrect! They were right! No lies involved.
> 
> Liberals are now history. Crooks. Corrupt. Colour them gone.
> 
> No leader. Wasted. Done. Finito. Ended. Over, as in get over it.


the cons failed to get a majority and as a matter of fact got less seats than did the scandal ravaged liberals last election

canada gave the liberals a time out and time to re-too
harpo will either learn to walk between the raindrops or he faces another election
his 6% GST and $1200 / yr. child tax credit notwithstanding he would have a difficult time to win a majority or even win at all

the 103 seats the liberals won should be a strong message to harpo et al
the Liberals are NOT decimated
they ran a bad campaign and the goodale scanelette and various stupid stunts / chretien back stabbing really hurt the liberals

i shall watch with interest if harpo can learn to play nice with the other kids - something i didn't see when he was in opposition


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

It'll certainly be interesting this time around with the shoe on the other foot (The "Right" foot)

D


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Giving out $1200 bonuses is not going to make more workable locations for childcare magically appear. It'll simply up the bidding war to get each of the few childcare spaces, of varying quality, that exist. We need efficient organizations with standards that can improve the number of quality childcare spaces across the country to an acceptable level. The only reason fiscal conservatives don't want to spend on this is that they don't believe that any federally funded organizations of any kind could possibly be efficient. In other words, they agree to run the country, and the way they're going to run it is to pay each individual to do for themselves on their own. I just don't agree with that philosophy, and I never will. Despite the many failures of government to efficiently run programs, I believe it can still be done. And I think the Bloc, NDP and Liberals all agree, which is why the Conservative childcare agenda is not going to happen in this minority parliament.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I don't consider the Cons plan "childcare" - it's a plan that only benefits few.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I don't consider the Cons plan "childcare" - it's a plan that only benefits few.


Quite the opposite. The Con plan give money to all families regardless. The Liberal plan is a one size fits all approach. Not all families want to send their children to a daycare. Why penalize them?

Why don't we just have the government raise our children for us? Why should parents shoulder the burden of parenting? The government can do it all.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, 


> The Conservatives’ plan for a “Choice in Child Care Allowance” is seriously flawed. Because the new program will trigger reductions in federal and provincial/territorial income-tested benefits and increases in income taxes, most families will end up with less – for modest-income families in the $30,000-$40,000 range, much less - than the gross $1,200 annual payment for every child under 6. *The Child Care Allowance also will favour one-earner couples over single parents and two-earner families*. *The proposed scheme is really a child benefit, not a child care program.* Caledon contends that it would be better to invest in further increases to the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit, a modern and effective social program that suffers from none of the failings of the proposed Choice in Child Care Allowance


http://www.caledoninst.org/


> "We've been trying to fund child care through benefits to families or parent subsidies for 30 years, and it hasn't worked," said Kira Heineck, executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. "We'd like to see investment directly in programs across the country."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/05/elxn-conservatives-child-care.html



> It is unfair because it treats one-income couples better than two-income and single-parent families. * It is also unfair because it will give the least assistance to working poor and modest-income families*, while favouring the better-off who least need help. And for parents in all income categories, the amount they will end up with is so meagre it won’t
> help parents find and afford good child care. A better solution to help Canada’s families:
> invest in high quality child care and—at the same time—increase the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit.


http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/action/election2006/pdf/harperccplan.pdf

Liberal plan was partially based on models that do work -

And again, lets not forget the gift to corporations:
"As an added incentive, the Harper plan would offer businesses or non-profit institutions healthy tax credits of $10,000 for each child care space they created."
http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/childcare.html 

And again, you just don't get it....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> The Liberal plan is a one size fits all approach...


??

*Liberal* approach is "One size fits all "? Not like $100 a month for every child under 6, regardless of your income, regardless of whether you have a single income, double income or single parent family, regardless of whether decent day care is available where you live?

$100 a month is a handout to Harper's core constituency - socially conservative families with stay at home moms. It is a drop in the bucket to people who really need child care. That's "one size doesn't fit anyone".

I think this one won't float.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Yes... why reward them?*



Vandave said:


> Quite the opposite. The Con plan give money to all families regardless. The Liberal plan is a one size fits all approach. Not all families want to send their children to a daycare. Why penalize them?


Why give money to families who aren't even going to use the money for child care of any sort (that includes daycare)?

Why REWARD parents with more money for doing nothing but having children? Why are families the "blessed" class?

Working parents have to make that decision... do I work or do I stay home to take care of children. It costs money to have that extra car, extra insurance, extra business wardrobe, etc. Add the cost of child care and it might not just add up.

Whatever happened to extended family, helping with child care? Right, each couple or single parent is their own island, their own nucleus. 

I understand the role of social/single payer health care, but having children is a choice, whereas getting the flu, or breaking a leg is not. I'm all for regulating child care providers to minimum standards to provide a safe, healthy environment, but I don't see the point of handing out cash for child care or having government run daycares themselves.

Rant off.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the only canadians that will benefit is quebeckers that already have a provincial day care system - it's a bonus 1200$ they don't need for childcare

now if someone made child day care tax deductible, i might start listening


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the only canadians that will benefit is quebeckers that already have a provincial day care system - it's a bonus 1200$ they don't need for childcare


Let's see what happens - the PQ PM has already told Harper not to touch the existing day-care system.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> now if someone made child day care tax deductible, i might start listening


There are some deductions, though I'm not familiar with the rules. Maybe they're means-tested?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Let's see what happens - the PQ PM has already told Harper not to touch the existing day-care system.


harpo will introduce the $1200 child care tax credit without any dismantling of quebec's provincial day care system

double dipping if you're a quebecker
and tell me one quebecker who's going to argue with an extra $1200 and have provincial day care?
talk about buying quebec votes, eh?

having their cake and eating it too


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> There are some deductions, though I'm not familiar with the rules. Maybe they're means-tested?


if the cons want to really empower the average canadian and reward stay at home parents, they could attach a tax credit for each child for those that don't take advantage of paid day care and also allow tax deductibility for those that need day care

seems that way each canadian family can decide which type of child care they want without being fiscally penalized

would also start to attach some value for stay at home spouses - something which is long overdue

that way the rich get their taxes reduced which they love and the average canadian gets affordable child care which they need

or am i just being simplisitic?

$1200/child/year is just an unrealisitc figure for parents that need day care


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> harpo will introduce the $1200 child care tax credit without any dismantling of quebec's provincial day care system
> 
> double dipping if you're a quebecker
> and tell me one quebecker who's going to argue with an extra $1200 and have provincial day care?
> ...


I don't think Quebec parents should get a 1200$ credit - no double dipping.
Yes, it maybe paying Quebec votes or trying to support a Liberal in name only provincial government.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if the cons want to really empower the average canadian and reward stay at home parents, they could attach a tax credit for each child for those that don't take advantage of paid day care and also allow tax deductibility for those that need day care
> 
> seems that way each canadian family can decide which type of child care they want without being fiscally penalized
> 
> ...


It maybe too simplistic - 
Also, remove the tax credit to rich companies. A provincial day-care spot cost 8000$/year per child. The 10 000$/year tax credit is a gift to business and really guarantees no level of care...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> It maybe too simplistic -
> Also, remove the tax credit to rich companies. A provincial day-care spot cost 8000$/year per child. The 10 000$/year tax credit is a gift to business and really guarantees no level of care...


why not just offer the same $10,000 tax credit per child per family?
good for goose.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> why not just offer the same $10,000 tax credit per child per family?
> good for goose.....


Sure why not - 
Wonder how the NeoCons would feel about that one?
Of course the private sector may not offer the same quality of service for that price.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if the cons want to really empower the average canadian and reward stay at home parents, they could attach a tax credit for each child for those that don't take advantage of paid day care and also allow tax deductibility for those that need day care


Agreed.


----------



## Pavmentsurfer (Jan 4, 2006)

After reading this very long thread front to back and being a Conservative suporter myself I have a few thoughts:
First, if your a liberal supporter your not going to be happy the conservatives won.
If your a conservative supporter you ARE going to be happy they won.
Likewise, we all defend the ideas and practices of whatever party we support. Is anyone going to change MY mind? No. Am I going to change yours by spouting all sorts of facts/articles/thoughts and opinions about why im right and your wrong? No.
If you want to voice an opinion fine. But dont link to articles written by other supporters of your side that are simply opinion voiced in a more public manner. A Liberal supporter who writes a newspaper column or editorial isnt a particularly valid source of proof for your arguments. 
Next, perhaps the majority of the country DIDNT vote Conservative... but an even smaller number voted Liberal. Therefore, the county (in a democratic society) HAS spoken. More people want Conservative than people who want Liberal, or NDP or Bloc. It wasent a majority, but they did win. 
Last, im from a small town in northern ontario. I moved to toronto recently for work. I dont make huge money and I dont have kids. I do pay HUGE income tax and I do pay both PST and GST like everyone else. I have beliefs and opinions about abortion, gay marraige, US Missle defence, Americanization and George Bush. Some you may agree with, some you may not. Im most interested in the difference between city voters and country voters respectively. Do the cities run the country? Do people in cities have a clear national view? From what ive seen living in this city for 8 months they sure dont. Of course, we all have our own best interests at heart. But there is a country outside these city walls, and outside the walls of Vancouver, Edmonton and the other Major Urban Centers. There are Millions of people occupying the rest of the country. Occupying MORE space than cities. Does anyone from the city think about those people and what might be best for them? I voted Conservative because overall I agree with what they want for Canada... a country I was born in and have lived in my whole life. Do I agree with everything they stand for and want to do? No, Do I agree with some Liberal ideas? Yes. NDP? Yes. Does that make any of them wrong? No, they are different and represent different sections of the population.
Perhaps, before we bid farwell to our country and nail the coffin shut we should wait a few months and see what happens. Ive noticed all the boo hooers are Liberal supporters. Its as if they have had their vioce taken away completely. As if they are no longer Canadian because the Liberals are no longer in power. Let someone else have a go at it for a while. If they do a poor job, vote them out next time. Obviously the Liberals didnt do what Canadians wanted because the Majority of Canadians voted for someone else, Conservative, NDP, Bloc or other.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good post Pavementsurfer. Welcome to ehMac.

One thing you got dead right is the fact that people who are born, raised and live their lives in metro cities have absolutely no idea the challenges faced by those who live and work in rural Canada. The latte sipping crowd and the pockets of multicultural areas in cities think their world is the only world, but they are sadly mistaken.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> harpo will introduce the $1200 child care tax credit without any dismantling of quebec's provincial day care system
> 
> double dipping if you're a quebecker
> and tell me one quebecker who's going to argue with an extra $1200 and have provincial day care?
> ...


It didn't buy my, nor my spouse's vote. But the money will be put to good use none the less.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The latte sipping crowd and the pockets of multicultural areas in cities think their world is the only world, but they are sadly mistaken.


And so do rural dwellers of Alberta....
The "God, guns and a pickup crowd" would do well to go to the "big city" once and awhile...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> It didn't buy my, nor my spouse's vote. But the money will be put to good use none the less.


Only if you receive it - you are in Quebec, not a guarantee....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And so do rural dwellers of Alberta....
> The "God, guns and a pickup crowd" would do well to go to the "big city" once and awhile...


Most Albertans live in urban areas; about 2/3 of the population live in Calgary and Edmonton alone, and there are several other smaller urban centres in Alberta.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks PenguinBoy - the comment was directed towards SINC.
I'm originally from St.Boniface Manitoba and have lived the US and Canada, rural and urban settings....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

I was born and raised in Alberta, and have never lived in a rural area, or owned either a gun or a pickup truck. (Although I'm always grateful when I can *borrow* a pickup to help with a home improvement project...)

OTOH, I know folks in rural Ontario who have a big 4x4 pickup, and own guns...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> ??
> 
> *Liberal* approach is "One size fits all "? Not like $100 a month for every child under 6, regardless of your income, regardless of whether you have a single income, double income or single parent family, regardless of whether decent day care is available where you live?
> 
> ...


A public program penalizes stay at home families.

A stay at home mom beats a government run daycare any day!!!

I realize not all families can do this, but the presumption that only rich families have stay at home moms is ridiculous. All income level families use this model.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave, you make the strangest assumptions.... really...

MACSPECTRUM and Beej seems to have found a solution, now let's go back and look at the problem we are trying to fix....

If Harpo really wants to make a difference, then he should push forward with a National daycare (Quebec model). Don't give companies a tax credit. If you opt out of the program, then you can get your 1200$.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Vandave said:


> A public program penalizes stay at home families.
> 
> A stay at home mom beats a government run daycare any day!!!
> 
> I realize not all families can do this, but the presumption that only rich families have stay at home moms is ridiculous. All income level families use this model.


Stay at home families need some daycare too; it's good for the kids' development. Besides, stay-at-home families already have benefits that dual-income families don't have, for instance, the stay-at-home parent is classified as a dependent for income tax. For some families, it already pays to have one parent stay at home. For others, it never will, even with the "choice" of how they spend the $1200.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Pavmentsurfer said:


> Likewise, we all defend the ideas and practices of whatever party we support. Is anyone going to change MY mind? No. Am I going to change yours by spouting all sorts of facts/articles/thoughts and opinions about why im right and your wrong? No.


That's a pretty sorry state of affairs, and I hope it doesn't reflect your real views. I would hope that you 
- consider you party's individual policies on their merits, rather than being a blind follower, and 
- have the wisdom to consider other points of view with an open mind, instead of dismissing them thoughtlessly, just because Harper tells you so.


----------



## Pavmentsurfer (Jan 4, 2006)

SYNC: I fully agree. And while I do not fully agree with Artist Series I think we should ALL keep an open mind towards ALL parts of the country. The sheer power of a city in terms of collective population is just to loud for rural parts of the country to compete with. I would say it is far MORE important for city dwellers to open their eyes to the rest of the country than it is for country folk to take a trip into the city. 
Believe me, the rural population KNOWS whats going on in the city. Its all they hear about. The majority of media coverage is in the city. Not just TV, all print media as well.
I think we all like to look out our windows and assume what we see is what everyone sees. Thats simply not true and to condem a political leader with different ideas than your own as "killing the country" is pretty short sighted.
Perhaps in Toronto $100 a month doesnt go far toward childcare. However, travel out of the GTA to places like Haliburton, Dorset, Bancroft and so on and you'll see that $1200 a year could make a HUGE difference in the lives of stay at home parents who simply have no other choice but to stay at home because the town they live in has NO childcare availiable. Many of whom live on tens of thousands less a year than a torontarian might think is not enough to survive.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said. Otherwise, things could get pretty dismal in here... and sleepy, too. The converted preaching to the other converted. _Yecchhhhh._


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> A public program penalizes stay at home families.
> …
> I realize not all families can do this, but the presumption that only rich families have stay at home moms is ridiculous. All income level families use this model.


If you talk in those terms, a handout penalizes two income families. I appreciate your point that there is value to moms taking care of their own kids, but there is more to the equation. What is the best/most important use of public funds?
A. Is it to encourage moms to stay home?
B. Is it to provide a benefit to families that would have a stay at home mom, regardless;
C. Is it to provide safe daycare to families who can't get by on two incomes;
D. Is it to provide early childhood education?

I would rank C as the top priority and D second. That doesn't mean A and B have no merit, and it would be great if there was enough money to do everything, but there isn't.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> D. Is it to provide early childhood education?


Are you suggesting that stay at home parents are incapable of providing early childhood education?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Can somebody please remind me what the Liberal child-care program was? They were in power for, what? 12? 13 years? They must have had a KICK-ASS child care program.

I don't have kids, so I guess I just missed what it is all about? Anybody? I need details. Everybody seems to be cutting up the Conservatives plan. I just want to compare the two. What was the Liberal's achievement in child-care?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Deals were signed with each province. For example, here's something Ontario did:
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/CS/en/newsRoom/newsReleases/051201.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Shall we try a Gordian knot solution and do a bit of creative slashing.

Surely there is an middle ground.

No question urban centres need daycare spaces and early childhood education goes along with that and perhaps Vandave should do a little reading about how critical "outside the home" interaction/education/immunity is.

Rural areas DO have different requirements this is one area where I think the municipality again needs some say in the matter as daycare facilities also draw employers.

Is it impossible in this day and age to have one or the other on the income tax form.

This is a family level version of assymetrical federalism.

Families, in particular in the poorer neighborhoods absolutely require daycare spaces to achieve two goals.

Letting the family have two income earners ( or single earners to have good childcare ) AND kickstart the education process. The latter may be the more critical of the two in the long run in breaking child poverty.
An enriched environment makes a huge difference and the earlier the better.
There are many studies that have shown this.

Stay at homes DO get tax breaks already both as shared income and spousal allowances.

Tax breaks AND universal programs need to be targetted - not just handed out.
NIce bribe for Quebec tho....
Worked too......if it were not for those 10 seats.........


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Beej, I was responding to the notion that parents were only getting their own money back, and so we non-parents should not complain about the policy or expect accountability as to its use. In fact if they are married and have kids they have many tax deductions and so pay less tax for more services than many of the rest of us, in theory. However, I think each policy should be judged individually regardless...

Oye, Quebecers double dipping... :greedy: :clap: 

Why not fund a national daycare system but give a tax credit to those who do not want to use it? Maybe that will end up being the compromise to get the bill through.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> Oye, Quebecers double dipping... :greedy: :clap:


Questionable. They already funded a system through their own revenues. If the Feds are paying for a similar system for everyone, they should get funds too, not be excluded because they already do it. 

If the Feds are handing out tax credits, the Quebecois should not be excluded simply because their provincial government already chose to fund a daycare program.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

Granted


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Sun Dog said:


> Beej, I was responding to the notion that parents were only getting their own money back, and so we non-parents should not complain about the policy or expect accountability as to its use. In fact if they are married and have kids they have many tax deductions and so pay less tax for more services than many of the rest of us, in theory. However, I think each policy should be judged individually regardless...


Good summary.

Also, society has quite widely chosen to give special financial treatment to parents. As a single person, this may not be of direct benefit, but such widespread support cannot be ignored. This society does and will continue to support procreation. Heck, intelligent support could mean fewer future muggers. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Beej said:


> There are some deductions, though I'm not familiar with the rules. Maybe they're means-tested?


In a double income family, the daycare deductions can only be applied towards the _lowest_ income of the two. 

(wouldn't want to give the greater wage-earner a break now, would we...)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> In a double income family, the daycare deductions can only be applied towards the _lowest_ income of the two.
> 
> (wouldn't want to give the greater wage-earner a break now, would we...)


Nope, your better half shouldn't get any breaks!


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Quiet, you!  

I'll have you know that, for the first time in near 15 years, in December I made more than she did. 'Course, Jan/Feb/Mar will be a different story...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Sun Dog said:


> Why not fund a national daycare system but give a tax credit to those who do not want to use it? Maybe that will end up being the compromise to get the bill through.


That was my suggestion a few post ago - with the added caveat that no tax breaks should be given to private enterprise....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I have been an early childhood education advocate since about 1978. I did part of the NL section of The National Childcare Policy Paper back in 1981. I am currently on the board of directors of the MUNSU (Memorial University of Newfoundland Student's Union) Childcare Center, one of the best center in our province, if not the country (Ken Dryden came to see our center and was VERY impressed). 

"...with the added caveat that no tax breaks should be given to private enterprise....". This is what Australia has, and they regret ever letting corporate childcare take over their country. Standards have gone way down, and costs are now rising. They need to up the ratio of caregivers to children from 6 to 1, as we have in Canada, to 8 to 1 and now 12 to 1. Sadly, they also have the least educated and lowest paid childcare workers in the English-speaking world. This is all because the corporate model, which is profit driven, convinced the Australian government that they could "run" childcare cheaper than the federal and state governments. They can, but at what cost to children???


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr. G, glad you spoke up.
I believe that they are some things that the government does better than private enterprise (this coming from a Libertarian). In Quebec, we have a model that works (yes it can be improved) - and I'm sure it will pay dividends to our children in the future. We have good standards here and the curriculum seems well rounded. Like I said, it's not perfect but it is a start...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> If you talk in those terms, a handout penalizes two income families. I appreciate your point that there is value to moms taking care of their own kids, but there is more to the equation. What is the best/most important use of public funds?
> A. Is it to encourage moms to stay home?
> B. Is it to provide a benefit to families that would have a stay at home mom, regardless;
> C. Is it to provide safe daycare to families who can't get by on two incomes;
> ...


I am not sure I know what you mean by C. Do you mean provide daycare for families who can't get by on one income?

In an ideal world, Option A would be the best, but I know not every family can do that. That's why I made the point earlier that, "it takes a village". Grandparents, friends and family should also participate in the raising of a child. A taxbreak helps some parents stay at home. $1200 isn't peanuts. It helps.

I don't like the idea of a society where the government provides everything for us. Where we ship our old people off to old age homes because we can't be troubled to go out of our way and help. Big brother isn't the best provider. I believe in the individual.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Silly Dr. G. Now you're just being a communist. Everyone knows that in the private sector, we trust.

And in this rural area, $1200 a year is still peanuts towards the childcare costs, which average 5 times that much. Better than nothing, I suppose, but small enough to be insulting. Good thing that policy will never get passed in this parliament.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Grandparents, friends and family should also participate in the raising of a child.


That's in your ideal fantasy world, right?
Extended family have no obligation to help raise children. In today's society I don't see what you advocate being feasible for most. 
Grandparents of my children are over 200km away (outside of Ottawa and Kingston). Brother is around Vancouver, brother-in-law in San Francisco, Aunt in Boston, sister in Ottawa, good friends in NY and LA. And most of these people still work...

I look at my neighbours and the situation is similar where the immediate family is not living close by...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, Vandave, AS is right on this one. The world where extended family can help considerably with child rearing is long gone for many. In my (red)neck part of the world, it is still around to a certain extent, granted. But for many it's not possible.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Excellent discussion by both sides - the delicate balance of throwing money at issues.

I notice with great irony, that the original poster, with all his histrionics, hasn't constructively added to this discussion.

The sky isn't falling with a Conservative minority...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I am not sure I know what you mean by C. Do you mean provide daycare for families who can't get by on one income?


Yup. That's what I meant


Vandave said:


> .. That's why I made the point earlier that, "it takes a village".


Does the village have a daycare centre in it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> That's in your ideal fantasy world, right?
> Extended family have no obligation to help raise children. In today's society I don't see what you advocate being feasible for most.
> Grandparents of my children are over 200km away (outside of Ottawa and Kingston). Brother is around Vancouver, brother-in-law in San Francisco, Aunt in Boston, sister in Ottawa, good friends in NY and LA. And most of these people still work...
> 
> I look at my neighbours and the situation is similar where the immediate family is not living close by...


We all choose where we live and work. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill because your family members want to live throughout the world?

This is my point... We don't make families a priority by our own actions. We don't live near extended families and not many people are willing to make a sacrifice for family.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave, we are not all so fortunate as to want or be able to work in the same field as our parents. Anyone who works in healthcare, or education, or technology knows that you have to go where the jobs are. Never mind police, fire, military, where you are sent and you go, but which don't always pay enough for the other spouse to stay at home any more (if they want to!). You are right. The children of my farmers could chose to stay and work the farm, so that there are now four families working the farm that often can't afford one. Or maybe they would make a better choice than that? Maybe some of them don't want to be farmers? It is easier for urban dwellers, granted, but not straightforward. Tech jobs are very much not equal in terms of geography.
All of which ignores the reality that many people my age (ie with kids in need of daycare) have two working parents. Even if we lived in the same house, they couldn't provide my childcare needs.
Yes, our families are not the same as they used to be. But you vastly over simplify the reality.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> We don't make families a priority by our own actions. We don't live near extended families and not many people are willing to make a sacrifice for family.


I think working parents to make families a priority - again you just don't get it....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Vandave, we are not all so fortunate as to want or be able to work in the same field as our parents. Anyone who works in healthcare, or education, or technology knows that you have to go where the jobs are. Never mind police, fire, military, where you are sent and you go, but which don't always pay enough for the other spouse to stay at home any more (if they want to!). You are right. The children of my farmers could chose to stay and work the farm, so that there are now four families working the farm that often can't afford one. Or maybe they would make a better choice than that? Maybe some of them don't want to be farmers? It is easier for urban dwellers, granted, but not straightforward. Tech jobs are very much not equal in terms of geography.
> All of which ignores the reality that many people my age (ie with kids in need of daycare) have two working parents. Even if we lived in the same house, they couldn't provide my childcare needs.
> Yes, our families are not the same as they used to be. But you vastly over simplify the reality.


I am not saying that all people can do it. That's not my point. I already said the reality is different from the ideal situation. The point I am making is that people expect the taxpayer to make a sacrifice before they do.

One sacrifice is to have a stay at home mom. Another would be moving near one of the grandparents. Or perhaps some people have friends would could babysit on days they don't work.

But when we create a system where somebody else foots the bill, where do you think everybody is going to send their kids? This isn't necessary in the best interests of the children, nor to our federal treasury.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I am not saying that all people can do it. That's not my point. I already said the reality is different from the ideal situation. The point I am making is that people expect the taxpayer to make a sacrifice before they do.
> 
> One sacrifice is to have a stay at home mom. Another would be moving near one of the grandparents. Or perhaps some people have friends would could babysit on days they don't work.
> 
> But when we create a system where somebody else foots the bill, where do you think everybody is going to send their kids? This isn't necessary in the best interests of the children, nor to our federal treasury.


The Con plan is to give people money and give tax credits to business. Sorry but that not a good plan.

Your bias is showing again - "stay at home mom"???  
My partner enjoys working. She makes more than I do at the moment. 
Friends work 9-7 most days.
The best interest of children is not to have parents living in poverty.
School programs such as daycare are long term investments for society. 

You just don't get it....


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

There is always the option to not have children.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MLeh said:


> There is always the option to not have children.


Obviously you aren't awake yet. A surprisingly stupid comment.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Obviously you aren't awake yet. A surprisingly stupid comment.


Sarcastic, perhaps. But why is it stupid?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Sarcastic, perhaps. But why is it stupid?


It's the same old, "if you're too poor to have children, don't" thing, as if your ability/right/choice is to have children no matter what, and it's the state's responsibility to raise them.

This clearly isn't the case. How many people know that childcare can cost $1000 per month, that staying home can cost you more if you have even a medium level job, and that two salaries just isn't enough for a lot of people who have one, let alone two or more kids?

Even knowing this in advance isn't enough. Choose to have children? Wait until Harper stops or reduces funding to the provinces that want to continue funding planned parenthood clinics or worse yet abortion clinics. Welcome to your vast array of "choices."

Sure, it's an option.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the biggest purchase in people's lives is their home and if there was a way to make home ownership (not for rental) more tax sensitive, perhaps one parent could stay home - that might lead to lower housing prices and less unemployment

but banks, real esate don't want that to happen

spiraling housing prices is not a good thing for low to medium income families


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The Con plan is to give people money and give tax credits to business. Sorry but that not a good plan.
> 
> Your bias is showing again - "stay at home mom"???
> My partner enjoys working. She makes more than I do at the moment.
> ...


The business plan doesn't benefit everybody so I am less enthusiastic about it.

I don't like the idea that a one income family foots the bill for two incomes families. It's just not fair. On one hand you have a family taking a financial hit by having a stay at home mom. Under the Liberal plan this family gets hit again by higher taxes. I think you are missing this point.

Your idea of a mixed system could work. If a family chose to have a stay at home mom, they should get an equal tax credit to the cost of the government provided daycare. It will be a lot more than $1200 per year. Imagine all the beer and popcorn that could buy.

In your case, I would have to ask if you couldn't afford daycare on your own. You have a two income family and can afford Mac computers and good wine. In all honesty, do you need the taxpayer footing this bill?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Can we just say 'stay at home parent' rather than 'mom'?

Certainly my husband would appreciate it ...


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

The NDP will hang you for uttering those words.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

You have a more politically correct terminology I should be using?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Obviously you aren't awake yet. A surprisingly stupid comment.


Having children is a choice. There is always the option of not having children. If a family is too busy or too poor to raise children, maybe the obvious solution is to not have them until they have those resources of time or money or both.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Can we just say 'stay at home parent' rather than 'mom'?
> 
> Certainly my husband would appreciate it ...


No offense intended. Good for your husband. That's cool.

I used the word mom because it is one word versus four and three letters versus 16. In addition to that most stay at home parents are female.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Yeah, Vandave, AS is right on this one. The world where extended family can help considerably with child rearing is long gone for many. In my (red)neck part of the world, it is still around to a certain extent, granted. But for many it's not possible.


It was gone back in our day too, but we made it through without government handouts. My wife and I raised three children.

She was from a small town in eastern Sask and I from a small city in western Sask and we met and married in my home town where son number one was born in 1968. Although my parents lived in the same place and hers a five hour drive away, it was not long until my work too me a 13 hour drive away to Grande Prairie, Alberta in 1969 where our daughter was born in 1970.

A transfer had us half a continent away later that same year when we moved to Wallaceburg, Ontario where son number two was born in 1976.

Another transfer took us to Kenora, Ontario in 1977, another back to Grande Prairie in 1980, another to Fort McMurray in 1982 and finally to our current home in 1989.

There were no such things as day care available to anyone during those early years and we were very distant from family of any kind. Instead we both worked and hired neighbourhood women to look after the children when we could not.

We paid $6.00 a day in 1970 dollars for that service which ate up about 1/3 of my take home wages per day (I earned $400.00 a month pre-tax in 1970.)

By 1977, that had risen to $10.00/day and my salary to about $1,000.00/month.

There was no support by the government of the day of any kind and we made it through just fine.

Today's parents should be expected to do the same and the public should not be expected to pay child care for working couples driving around, her in the Beemer and he in the Hummer.

If child care has to exist at all, shouldn't it only be given after a very strict means test?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't like the idea that a one income family foots the bill for two incomes families. It's just not fair. On one hand you have a family taking a financial hit by having a stay at home mom. Under the Liberal plan this family gets hit again by higher taxes. I think you are missing this point.
> 
> Your idea of a mixed system could work. If a family chose to have a stay at home mom, they should get an equal tax credit to the cost of the government provided daycare. It will be a lot more than $1200 per year. Imagine all the beer and popcorn that could buy.
> 
> In your case, I would have to ask if you couldn't afford daycare on your own. You have a two income family and can afford Mac computers and good wine. In all honesty, do you need the taxpayer footing this bill?


Vandave, it's not about me - when will you get that? - the capital gains exception will also benefit me and yet I think it's wrong.... You are making judgement calls based on your prejudices...

The two family income pays their share of income tax on both incomes. The one family income gets a combined income and in theory, pay a lower % of their revenue to taxes.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Not quite. A family who has two $60,000 earners (total income $120,000.00) pays less income tax than a one income family with the same total income of $120,000.00


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Not quite. A family who has two $60,000 earners (total income $120,000.00) pays less income tax than a one income family with the same total income of $120,000.00


This is an important part of the argument that our tax system is designed to discourage stay at home parents. Add on subsidised daycare, an overall good idea in my opinion, and this is exacerbated implicitly through income taxes (extra taxes paid by single income family go towards funding dual income users of daycare).

As a single person, subsidize beer instead. Keeps the economy chugging along nicely; or at least it will feel that way.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> This is an important part of the argument that our tax system is designed to discourage stay at home parents. Add on subsidised daycare, an overall good idea in my opinion, and this is exacerbated implicitly through income taxes (extra taxes paid by single income family go towards funding dual income users of daycare).
> 
> As a single person, subsidize beer instead. Keeps the economy chugging along nicely; or at least it will feel that way.



now you'll have MADD mad at you


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Today's parents should be expected to do the same and the public should not be expected to pay child care for working couples driving around, her in the Beemer and he in the Hummer.
> 
> If child care has to exist at all, shouldn't it only be given after a very strict means test?


If any government is giving childcare support to a family that can afford both a beemer and a hummer, I certainly won't be hesitating to label that as abhorrent. Oh, wait. There IS a party suggesting that. The Conservatives.

Of course there should be a means test. Which is why this policy is very, very wrong. And since it is the government that would need to administer the needs test, then should they not also be the operators, or at the very least overseers, of the facilities? This is sounding more and more socialist by the minute, I know. But what can you do. I'm just a pinko.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> now you'll have MADD mad at you


They'll have to come pick me up, I don't have a car.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The two family income pays their share of income tax on both incomes. The one family income gets a combined income and in theory, pay a lower % of their revenue to taxes.


Not true! A single income family pays *more* tax than a dual income family that makes the same amount -- one person making $80k will pay much higher tax than two people each earning $40k, even _before_ any tax considerations for child care are taken into account.

Edit: Sorry to post the same point that was already brought up above!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

is there an accountant in the house?


----------

