# Enjoy the Bribe....



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that the Government intends to move quickly to deliver on its commitment to support child care choices for parents, effective July 1, 2006.


That's the money he's promised. 


> Under the new Choice in Child Care Allowance, all families will receive $1,200 per year for each child under six, to be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income.


Choice in Child Care Allowance? That's rather dishonest. 


> “This Allowance will let parents choose the child care option that best suits their family’s needs,” said the Prime Minister. “Our aim is to ensure that Canadian families get the greatest possible benefit from this new Allowance.”


What options? He's dismantling a service, and society will pay for it. 


> The Allowance will be effective July 1, 2006, and payments will flow as soon as possible after that date, pending passage of legislation in Parliament.


Hope it does not get passed.


> The Prime Minister also reiterated that the Government of Canada is phasing out the early learning and child care agreements signed by the previous government with the provincial and territorial governments. The agreements allow for their termination upon one year’s notice from either party. The Government of Canada will transfer funds for one year, 2006-07, at the level set out in Budget 2005 to all provincial and territorial governments to support their investments in early learning and child care.


So in 2007 Quebec will no longer have early learning and CPE. 


> The Prime Minister noted that the Government remains committed to introducing new measures to assist employers and community organizations to create new child care spaces.


My employer and my partners employer don't give a rat's ass about this. Only rich companies that will have no standards to follow will benefit from this. It's a tax break for them. If you are ready to give companies a break, I fail to see how you are helping families.



> The net fiscal cost of these measures and details on the design of the Allowance will be provided in the Government’s first Budget.


That should be a lark....

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=689


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What options? He's dismantling a service, and society will pay for it.


The option to stay at home, or the option to send your child to day care.

Those who choose to stay at home to care for their children will still benefit from the $100 / mo, where they wouldn't benefit at all from socialized day care.

Those who choose day care will benefit as well, although not as much as they would with a fully funded day care system.

So this program helps all parents of pre schoolers equally, rather than helping one group a lot and providing no help at all to the other group.

While $100 a month probably isn't enough to influence someone's decision to stay at home with their children, my guess is the stay at home parents that don't see *any* benefit under the current system will be glad to see the money, if only so they can buy beer and popcorn.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

From here:



Beej said:


> I like the idea of a comprehensive childcare plan, but can understand why many oppose it and prefer the Conservative option. The quoted attitude, however, is the 'popcorn and beer' attitude. Government is the only one to trust with our children, resistance is futile!


I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation of the attitude, although maybe it is for some. My wife and I have discussed what we will do with the money, and it won't be going to childcare. Not because we don't want daycare, but because it is useless for that purpose. $100 a month is such a tiny piss in the bucket that there is no point in even pretending otherwise. We will use it for things we wish we could afford for her but can't, but we could most use it for groceries and clothes. If it were actually enough to cover childcare, or, hell, even 50% of it, we might think of using it for that purpose. But if an extra $100 per month is enough to suddenly make daycare affordable for you, you probably didn't need the money in the first place.



Beej said:


> Why not argue the possible benefits of early learning and regular interaction with other kids?
> 
> Why not argue that it will be difficult to build daycare capacity with dispersed funds?


I agree with these points, however. But they are kind of pointless arguments, in my experience. The people making the decisions honestly believe that the market forces will supply to match whatever need is there, and apparently that $1200 is more than enough. Sorry, but the attitude being taken here is so incredibly stupid that I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks this is a good idea is capable of rational thought, let alone debate. My only hope is that both of these measures will be stopped by parliament, but since the opt out can apparently be done without parliament action, the opposition parties are pretty well forced to approve the money, since the alternative is nothing at all.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> ... The people making the decisions *honestly believe that the market forces will supply to match whatever need is there, and apparently that $1200 is more than enough. Sorry, but the attitude being taken here is so incredibly stupid that I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks this is a good idea is capable of rational thought, let alone debate.* My only hope is that both of these measures will be stopped by parliament, but since the opt out can apparently be done without parliament action, the opposition parties are pretty well forced to approve the money, since the alternative is nothing at all.


I can hardly wait to see what "Mr. Free Market" Vandave has to say about this! Vandave? The floor is yours...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> The option to stay at home, or the option to send your child to day care.
> 
> So this program helps all parents of pre schoolers equally, rather than helping one group a lot and providing no help at all to the other group.


I'd have no problems with real choice. 
If you don't send your child to daycare then you get $1200.
I don't see the need to give private enterprise a tax credit on this.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

The real effect is that it has quashed any hope of increasing the availability of new, licensed daycare facilities. 

It costs a fortune to set up a proper daycare, jump through the rgulatory hoops, hire staff and maintain all standards (as it should). If there were formal govenment programs that funded registered daycares, then businesspeople would take the risk and make the investment in setting up new facilities. But no longer; the government has insured that investment will run away from daycare as fast as it can.

Now not only are existing agreements being dismantled, but the money is going out unallocated. This means that parents are free to spend it on anything, but more to the point, since it is nowhere near enough to place a child in a registered daycare, much of it will go to unlicensed daycare, whether babysitters, family or non-licensed commercial operators. This is not to say that family are not deserving for taking care of children, but that there are standards for commercial daycares, for very good reasons of safety and health.

What the Harper government is in effect saying is that they are removing support from the people who followed the rules to set up licensed day care, and that there is now no minimum quality standard for child care, according to the fedreal government.


Here's a thought exercise: Your town decides to stop repairing roads, and instead enables each citizen with the Choice in Transportation grant, which gives every individual $25 to use on their choice of road repairs.
When traffic comes to a standstill and the last grocery truck can't deliver food to your supermarket because it is stuck in a pothole, that will be the choice of the people not to have bought shovels and ashphalt with their $25.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'd have no problems with real choice.
> If you don't send your child to daycare then you get $1200.


Several folks have already pointed out that $1200 is nowhere near the cost of providing quality daycare, so shouldn't stay at home parents receive an equivalent benefit?

Why favour those that choose to use daycare over those that choose to stay at home with their kids?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

PenguinBoy said:


> Several folks have already pointed out that $1200 is nowhere near the cost of providing quality daycare, so shouldn't stay at home parents receive an equivalent benefit?
> 
> Why favour those that choose to use daycare over those that choose to stay at home with their kids?


Perhaps one has to be Conservative to comprehend the concept?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Why don't we just hook up a vacuum to single people's wallets while we're at it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Why don't we just hook up a vacuum to single people's wallets while we're at it.


As one whose children have come and gone with not a dime from the government in the process, I feel single people's pain. It is similar to mine after I paid my way and now must share in the raising of children that are not mine.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I was mostly kidding, but it could be worse. I could be somewhere other than Canada.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

ArtistSeries, RevMatt et al,

Our public school system is already an underfunded beast that pushes parents to the periphery... why would we want to create a similar behemoth to look after our preschoolers? And why would we want to subsidize public daycare over small home care operations or parents who choose to stay at home and raise their kids?

The money I get won't pay for my children's care... but it will certainly help. Best of all, it starts this July... who knows how many years we'd have to wait for public daycare?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I've raised a child without any money from the government. Heck, I don't even qualify for GST rebates.

And know what ... I fully agree with the fact that parents should have the option of staying home with their children, and that they shouldn't be unfairly treated taxwise because they don't take advantage of daycare.

What is the 'net' increase to the family income if both parents instead of one works? With subsidised daycare the income is greater, but I still hear complaints that the NET gain is not significant once employment costs (transportation, work clothes, lunches out, other employment expenses, etc) are taken into account. 

But what if they would prefer to raise their own children, with one parent staying home? They are losing that tax advantage. It's like the government is devaluing the value of raising your children yourself.

If we are going to value children, and feel that the government (which is us) should promote their best interests in raising them, why do people who place their children in daycare deserve more benefits than those who sacrifice that second income?

I know people who have crunched the numbers, and although the subsidy doesn't near cover the cost of daycare, it DOES create total NET gain for the family unit. Basically, it is 'real' income, compared to someone working, making higher gross income but then having to deduct expenses to make not much more 'net' gain.

Depends on your priorities, I guess. I see this as a fairer system for those who choose to forego a bit more money for the opportunity to raise their own kids. And I don't mind my tax dollars going to that.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> As one whose children have come and gone with not a dime from the government in the process, I feel single people's pain. It is similar to mine after I paid my way and now must share in the raising of children that are not mine.


It should be considered a privilege, SINC. Many people have paid much worse for the well-being of others, children and adults alike.

This legislation feels like such a huge step backwards. The care of children carries such importance to a society, money should not be an obstacle for their well-being. Every child society fails, we all pay the price for it later on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This is one of those subjects that breeds animosity for some reason (you know, for kids  ). As I've said, I support the universal daycare option (and would like further benefits for those who 'opt out'), but the basic indecency occasionally shown by some on this topic is quite surprising. 

I'm impressed with most of the points in the last handful posts. Keep it up! I think this topic is one of those ones where there's a lot more common ground than is immediately obvious.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

ML's argument is a different one, at least. If the point of this is simply to give some NET income increase to all parents, regardless of their parenting choices, then that is a different thing altogether from pretending that the money is sufficient to actually fund daycare. I'm not sure how I would respond thoughtfully to that perspective yet, other than that my gut says it is still a poor policy. But that is not a real response.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> It should be considered a privilege, SINC. Many people have paid much worse for the well-being of others, children and adults alike.
> 
> This legislation feels like such a huge step backwards. The care of children carries such importance to a society, money should not be an obstacle for their well-being. Every child society fails, we all pay the price for it later on.


You know darkscot, I WOULD consider it a privilege if today's youth would just try to show one tiny bit of respect.

Instead they romp through the neighbourhood at all hours of the night in Mommy's BMW, dressed in outlandish costumes that cost hundreds of dollars with their hats on sideways and smokin' a joint with a bottle of Jack Daniels in the trunk.

When parents teach them that type of behaviour is unacceptable, I'll get on the bandwagon. Too many of 'em are just uncontrolled hooligans and I lay the blame squarely with the parents. Until then, I will keep calling the cops to get them off my street.

Correct that and I will indeed be privileged.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> ...pretending that the money is sufficient to actually fund daycare.


Has anyone claimed that it *is* sufficient to fund daycare?

I thought it was an attempt to provide some benefit to all parents of pre-schoolers, as opposed fully funded daycare for some, and nothing at all for others.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> You know darkscot, I WOULD consider it a privilege if today's youth would just try to show one tiny bit of respect.
> 
> Instead they romp through the neighbourhood at all hours of the night in Mommy's BMW, dressed in outlandish costumes that cost hundreds of dollars with their hats on sideways and smokin' a joint with a bottle of Jack Daniels in the trunk.
> 
> ...


ooh boy, I bet your elders thought similar of your peers too when you were younger. But I do agree that today's youth can be troubled. It's quite a different world they live in comparison. Each subsequent generation lays the ground for the next generation. Guess the world is just going to Hell.

psst, they wouldn't share the JD and cheeba with you, eh?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> ooh boy, I bet your elders thought similar of your peers too when you were younger. But I do agree that today's youth can be troubled. It's quite a different world they live in comparison. Each subsequent generation lays the ground for the next generation. Guess the world is just going to Hell.
> 
> psst, they wouldn't share the JD and cheeba with you, eh?


First be clear we were taught to call our elders Sir or Mister, Ma'am or Miss.

I was able to borrow my parents latest vehicle, a 1957 Pontiac Laurentian four door sedan, purchased new, for my grad night in 1962 for the first time by myself. I had to have it home by 1:00 a.m. and THAT was two hours MY past normal curfew for a Saturday night. (I bought and paid for, by myself, my own '49 Ford coupe with salary at 40 cents an hour from a local garage.)

As for your question, I did not ask to share the JD.

And what the hell is cheeba?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

And were you as strict with your children?

Cheeba is pot, weed, ganja.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Our public school system is already an underfunded beast that pushes parents to the periphery... why would we want to create a similar behemoth to look after our preschoolers? And why would we want to subsidize public daycare over small home care operations or parents who choose to stay at home and raise their kids?


The daycare model proposed followed the successful ones implemented by Quebec and Switzerland. The model here is a mixture of bigger centres and small affiliated home care operations. Private day cares still exist, as well other options. The care given by CPEs (Centre Petite Enfance) is exemplary as they have minimum standards to follow. Money spend on pre-schoolers will benefit then and society in the long run. I have always maintained that parents that want to take care of children at home should have that option. 




Fink-Nottle said:


> The money I get won't pay for my children's care... but it will certainly help. Best of all, it starts this July... who knows how many years we'd have to wait for public daycare?


In Quebec, the Con plans means a partial or complete dismantling of what exist. Charest and Harper are already "negotiating" to see what they can do. 
Funny how most don't seem to mind that Harper will be giving generous tax credits to companies who set up daycares on their premises. To me, this has to be one of the most ridiculous endeavours as you will have no standards, it will be only available to rich companies. It is repressive towards lower and middle class earners. 

The $1200 is a cheap bribe. Harper is counting on minions clamouring for that money and a backlash on any party that shoots down whatever bill it will tacked unto.


----------



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

Wait until people realize that this $1200 is taxable and thus, only the full amount is actually retained by those not working.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> You know darkscot, I WOULD consider it a privilege if today's youth would just try to show one tiny bit of respect.
> 
> Instead they romp through the neighbourhood at all hours of the night in Mommy's BMW, dressed in outlandish costumes that cost hundreds of dollars with their hats on sideways and smokin' a joint with a bottle of Jack Daniels in the trunk.
> 
> ...


Let's see Alberta, Mommy's BMW, total disregard for other, hummm Oil Patch Libertarian Conservatives' kids?:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> And were you as strict with your children?
> 
> Cheeba is pot, weed, ganja.


A very personal question to be sure. But OK, I will be honest. Yes, we were, but one disappointed us. Two are normal functioning members of society and have very successful careers. The jury is still out on number three, who incidentally is the oldest, near 40 who became a rebel, if you will. He still struggles with life and things much more sinister than "Cheeba". 

One plays the hand one is dealt.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi ArtistSeries,

That's interesting... do you know how much the proposed system would cost per child? How much does the Quebec system cost?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Wait until people realize that this $1200 is taxable and thus, only the full amount is actually retained by those not working.


Not quite true. As several folks have pointed out, $1200 / yr. is less than the cost of child care, and child care is tax deductible, so if someone were to put the money towards child care they wouldn't be taxed on it.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

SINC said:


> A very personal question to be sure. But OK, I will be honest. Yes, we were, but one disappointed us. Two are normal functioning members of society and have very successful careers. The jury is still out on number three, who incidentally is the oldest, near 40 who became a rebel, if you will. He still struggles with life and things much more sinister than "Cheeba".
> 
> One plays the hand one is dealt.


Did not mean to pry, SINC. This seems to be diverging from the original post. Regardless, the errant nature of many of today's youth underlines more than ever an urgent need for society to invest more in childcare and healthy, happy homes.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The daycare model proposed followed the successful ones implemented by Quebec and Switzerland..


If getting your kids out of your hair for the day as cheaply as possible (to the parent) is what makes the Quebec model successful, then I'd have to agree it is. 
But if producing a socially balanced child with a good parent-child bond are worthy goals, studies show the Quebec model isn't looking all that wonderful.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_25_english.pdf

This study shows a dramatic rise of anxious, aggressive children in Quebec since they introduced Childcare reforms.

I'd gladly have Granny care for my children than put them in a system with troubling results like this.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver, the CDHowe study has been heavily criticized and is already discredited. 
As you know, CD Howe is a right wing think tank. Everything from the timing of the "report" to the methodology used is suspect. Scores of non-partisan studies have shown clear benefits. Now, this study with a bias and impeccable Con timing comes out and you cite it.... If you want a real debate, get better sources. I'm tired of these Neo-Con games.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> As one whose children have come and gone with not a dime from the government in the process, I feel single people's pain. It is similar to mine after I paid my way and now must share in the raising of children that are not mine.


1. Baby bonus.
2. Guess who will be paying for your health care in your old age? I imagine your taxes were a fair bit lower during your earlier earning years when you had less health care and less need for it.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Not quite true. As several folks have pointed out, $1200 / yr. is less than the cost of child care, and child care is tax deductible, so if someone were to put the money towards child care they wouldn't be taxed on it.


That's not correct. We already have the deduction and it is also limited. People are already putting money into child care and using the deduction. The $1,200 will be taxed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> MacGuiver, the CDHowe study has been heavily criticized and is already discredited.
> As you know, CD Howe is a right wing think tank. Everything from the timing of the "report" to the methodology used is suspect. Scores of non-partisan studies have shown clear benefits. Now, this study with a bias and impeccable Con timing comes out and you cite it.... If you want a real debate, get better sources. I'm tired of these Neo-Con games.


The report identifies where more research is needed. The timing isn't suspect, they try to time reports to be relevant to the current issues.

CD Howe is non-partisan and your comments indicate that you aren't aware of their credibility. Who do you think has better unbiased credibility that has spoken out against the reports' actual conclusions (below)? More work is needed on this topic, not dismissing a credible research institution because it disagrees with your (libertarian  ) political leanings. 

By the way, how do you define neocon? 

From the report:
Conclusions 

*While investigation of the Quebec model is in its infancy, preliminary evidence leaves it unclear, on balance, whether this program is what is best for children and their parents. *Adopting the Quebec model nationally would cost significantly more than the amounts any party proposed to spend in the recent election. Apotential expenditure of this magnitude demands careful understanding of the potential benefits. Our research suggests that the spending would benefit primarily middleand upper-income families, and would stimulate more work outside the home among mothers. This means there are benefits to consider alongside an at least short-run deterioration in the well-being of children and their families: many families may find that the income and other long-term benefits of work outside the home outweigh the stresses created by daycare arrangements. Public programs in support of daycare should reflect an understanding of these difficult choices that families face.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

nxnw said:


> That's not correct. We already have the deduction and it is also limited. People are already putting money into child care and using the deduction. The $1,200 will be taxed.


My point is that the tax on the $1200 will be offset by the childcare deduction.

Of course the only folks who have the deduction are the ones who use daycare. Stay at home parents will do even better, as many of them won't even pay tax on the $1200.

While there is obviously a need for daycare, I believe a socialized daycare program discriminates against stay at home parents. I would rather see most folks that choose to use daycare pay the full price of the service, with a subsidy available for low income parents who can't otherwise make ends meet. I don't see the sense in using the taxes from single income families to pay for daycare for dual income families.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

But MacGuiver, since you want to play this sophist game, lets start with your report.
You site an e-brief and not a study, so the "big headlines" without exploring the facts again dominate your argument.
This is a right-wing e-brief with an agenda, hardly something neutral, but keep drinking that cool-aid....


> 2 This survey is conducted by Statistics Canada, but the *results in our paper represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Statistics Canada*.


So right away, they admit to drawing up different views and conclusion using the same data as StatsCan.


> *we focus on mothers in two-parent households*, as opposed to single mothers or single fathers. The reason: it is difficult to separate out the effects of the Quebec childcare system for single parents, owing to the wide range of tax policy, child benefit, and social assistance changes in the past 10 years.


The focus should be on children - Also, removing single parents does show an obvious bias against people that greatly benefit from this program. 


> Our first major finding is that the Quebec program heavily subsidized the
> cost of childcare for middle- and high-income families: for typical two-parent families, ...


Of course it has. It's open to everyone. It has also helped low income families. 


> Second, subsidized childcare led to more mothers taking on paid work outside the home. *This increase brings many benefits*, such as raising the Quebec economy’s productive capacity and promoting the careers of women who might otherwise have only sporadic attachment to the labour force.* It also generates more tax revenue*; as a rough calculation we estimate new federal and provincial taxes *offset about 40 percent of the cost of the program*.


I hear outrage from Cons: "Oh no!, women have a choice... They are out of the kitchen, the world will end..."


> We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children.


No clue what they studied, as the authors do not cite any sources. 


> The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed,


A few decades ago, studies showed that stay-at-home mothers were more depressed. Of course, the "study" does not take into account how society has evolved over the past few decades, nor does it even measure the impact of poverty. 


> Our findings constitute empirical evidence on the sometimes painful stress that families face as they seek to balance competing demands and expectations at work and home.


Empirical? You mean: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic... Also known as highly subjective...



> One concern is that our findings *reflect problems that families would face anyway when their children enter school*; the universal childcare program simply hastened the day of reckoning.


You mean to say that parents who also send their kids to private day care, may see the same results?


> Also, it is important to stress that it *may not be the type of childcare that
> drives the behavioural changes we observe*; rather, it could be the *combination of mother working and the child being in care*.


So basically they are saying mothers should not work? Notice how it could of been both parent working, yet they focus on if the mother works. So we have a sexist study...


> For this reason, *our results cannot be used to make judgments* about care by family members versus care in an institutional setting.


But wait, MacGuiver just wrote that he prefers to have Granny take care of the kids...


> Another possibility is that our findings* reflect a change in how parents
> answer the survey questions, rather than a change in actual behaviour*.


So all your conclusions are wrong, as they admit that they can't really measure the real impact. See, parents guilt may also play a role in influencing answers...


> Finally, we were *unable to study the longer term impact of the program, if
> any*, on children’s outcomes.


So they may not be any long term impact? They seem to be able to make grandiose statements when it suits them... funny that...


> Importantly, findings by other researchers indicate that cognitive abilities of children in daycare may be higher by the time children reach school age; especially if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds.


Except that you prefer to omit that in your own study.


> Conclusions
> While investigation of the Quebec model is in its infancy, preliminary evidence leaves it unclear, on balance, whether this program is what is best for children and their parents.


It may not be the best for "children and their parents" - but it's a hell of a lot better than the Harper plan...


> Adopting the Quebec model nationally would cost significantly more than
> the amounts any party proposed to spend in the recent election. Apotential
> expenditure of this magnitude demands careful understanding of the potential
> benefits.


Numbers are available for the Quebec model. Liberals used them. Seems the Cons went the more generous route of placing the amount at 10 000$/year.
Studies and conclusions have been done - look at all the provinces that signed onto the Liberal plan.


> Our research suggests that the spending would benefit primarily middle-
> and upper-income families, and would stimulate more work outside the home among mothers.


Wow, they wrote this twice in the report - so it must be important to them.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> CD Howe is non-partisan and your comments indicate that you aren't aware of their credibility.





> The C.D. Howe Institute (French: Institut C.D. Howe) is a Canadian economic and social think tank based in Toronto, Ontario. It is non-profit and officially non-partisan. However, it is funded mainly by large corporations, and generally advocates conservative economic policies such as tax cuts for business.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.D._Howe_Institute
Don't bite the hand that feeds you....

(btw, who will be getting tax credits for "creating" day care spaces?)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Beej said:


> The report identifies where more research is needed. The timing isn't suspect, they try to time reports to be relevant to the current issues.
> 
> CD Howe is non-partisan and your comments indicate that you aren't aware of their credibility. Who do you think has better unbiased credibility that has spoken out against the reports' actual conclusions (below)? More work is needed on this topic, not dismissing a credible research institution because it disagrees with your (libertarian  ) political leanings.
> 
> ...


Just wanted to refresh all of our memories by reposting Beej's last reply.

What he has written here is worth reading again. Good bad or ugly...and I don't give a HOOT whether it agrees with my particular take on this subject or not. It's still worth a second pass.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, even for you, your 'breakdown' and commentary on the conclusions is absolutely devoid of understanding. Do you really think that's a critique of the report and not you? You can be a lot more reasonable, I've seen it.

Care in point of AS not being nearly as constructive as he usually is:
...
"Oh no, women have a choice... They are out of the kitchen, the world will end..."
...
That was your response to this:
...
"Second, subsidized childcare led to more mothers taking on paid work outside the home. This increase brings many benefits, such as raising the Quebec 
economy’s productive capacity and promoting the careers of women who might 
otherwise have only sporadic attachment to the labour force. It also generates 
more tax revenue; as a rough calculation we estimate new federal and provincial 
taxes offset about 40 percent of the cost of the program."
... 

They were clearly just identifying the mechanism for and some numbers behind economic impacts, but you, being much less sensible than usual, decided to do your hair-pulling, jumping about, 'there are neocons in my soup' routine. :lmao: 

As I said, it is non-partisan and they do have an excellent reputation. Would you prefer government funding? How about random yahoos? They clearly have a free-market leaning ideology. Don't mix up 'bias' and 'credibility' with 'AS doesn't like it'.

[Edit: AS, the problem may be that your comments are editorial/journalistic (low/no context and lots of inference of meaning) whereas this is semi-academic style (high context, low/no inference). It is a very different style of critique and the journalistic treatment is notoriously horrendous at interpreting the academic style. The academic style is notoriously horrendous at being interesting.]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries,

Cool down there big guy your going to have a stroke! LOL

I didn't realize CD Howe was a division of Darth Vader and the evil empire. Thanks for the heads up!
I'll take your "balanced" and "unbiased" rant as gospel then and send my kids to institutional daycare centers despite their protests every time we had to send them to one. Funny we never had that problem with the local sitter. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

But MacGuiver...it's SOOOO much better if the Daycare centers all across Canada , and almost everything ELSE, are run by the Government!

And manned by unionised workers! A perfect world!

Sounds like UTOPIA!!

Till they all go on strike, that is. And hold our children hostage while they get what they want.

That's when the whole "Utopia Thing" begins to fall apart. In a big way.

_DOH!!_


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> But MacGuiver...it's SOOOO much better if the Daycare centers all across Canada , and almost everything ELSE, are run by the Government!
> 
> And manned by unionised workers! A perfect world!
> 
> ...


You got it MacNutt!

The unions make all things work better and they're always looking out for the interests of our children. Look at the public school system in the US and watch ABCs "Stupid in America" program if you'd like to see buracracy and unions in action. Its an eye opener!  

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1491217

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I'll take your "balanced" and "unbiased" rant as gospel then and send my kids to institutional daycare centers despite their protests every time we had to send them to one. Funny we never had that problem with the local sitter.


No one would be forcing you to send your kids to institutional daycare. And if you have the resources and have an available sitter, good for you. Not everyone has the option of having their kids stuck to mom's tits until they reach the age of 6.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> You got it MacNutt!
> 
> The unions make all things work better and they're always looking out for the interests of our children. Look at the public school system in the US and watch ABCs "Stupid in America" program if you'd like to see buracracy and unions in action. Its an eye opener!
> 
> ...


And you also realize that countries that did MUCH better than the US have school systems run by the government and have union workers, right?...



> GENERAL MATH
> 
> .
> 
> ...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And all of those "Health Care Workers" who sweep the floors and do the laundry and re-heat the pre-cooked food trays in our government run hospitals ALL deserve to drive BMW's.

While getting their dog's birthday off at triple pay. tptptptp 

And...if they don't get all of this, and even MORE...then they go on STRIKE! While claiming that the "goverment doesn't really CARE about quality health care"!! 

What a total crock.tptptptp


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> No one would be forcing you to send your kids to institutional daycare. And if you have the resources and have an available sitter, good for you. Not everyone has the option of having their kids stuck to mom's tits until they reach the age of 6.


Mom's tits?? WTF is that all about. LOL!!! 

I like your idea though!

While I'm paying for my kids to be cared for out of my own pocket, I can also pay the bill for my yuppie neighbors to drop the kids off with the hummer at the state run facility on their way to important board meetings. Clever!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, if that's the study I remember, the provincial breakdowns are interesting.

[Edit: doesn't appear to be.]


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

If you have an open and accessible system, then yes there is a "danger"* that SUV driving soccer mom will be driving her kids to daycare. It also means that the single parent serving you that Timmies coffee has some piece of mind knowing that her child is safe and sound with reliable care. She may even feel at ease going back to school. 
Of course, your yuppie neighbours don't have to drop off the kids, they may likely chose to have a nanny...

* only if you consider this bad...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> If you have an open and accessible system, then yes there is a "danger"* that SUV driving soccer mom will be driving her kids to daycare.
> 
> * only if you consider this bad...


A key consideration. Would the program be better for the country as means-tested (needs to be done very carefully, current means-testing already badly warps our system). The difference between universal and means-tested would likely be billions, funds which could improve the means-tested care, go into other spending areas or corporate tax cuts  . Is the priority universal, or is something else a higher priority?

Also, I am truthfully interested in your definition of neocon.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> A key consideration. Would the program be better for the country as means-tested (needs to be done very carefully, current means-testing already badly warps our system). The difference between universal and means-tested would likely be billions, funds which could improve the means-tested care, go into other spending areas or corporate tax cuts  . Is the priority universal, or is something else a higher priority?


Amen, preach it brother!

Why should we all have to pay to for a socialized daycare system so dual income yuppies can better afford the lease on their Lexus SUV?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Why should we all have to pay to for a socialized daycare system so dual income yuppies can better afford the lease on their Lexus SUV?


Because we really want to bust-loose on our Kyoto targets -- 30% over is peanuts!


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> CD Howe is non-partisan and your comments indicate that you aren't aware of their credibility.


The C.D. Howe institute is partisan. I know you hate quotes but you may find this interesting:


> First, in the 1980s and 1990s the corporate community has funnelled considerable resources into so-called think tanks. The Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, the C. D. Howe Institute in Toronto, and the Canada West Foundation in Calgary are among the most influential policy-oriented research institutes.
> 
> Right-wingers might argue that the left in Canada has its own think tanks in the form of some university-based research centres. Of course, even the most objective scholarship might seem threatening to those who hold strong ideological views. These centres lack both the financing and the muscle that is available to the corporate-sponsored institutes. Indeed, as university budgets and federal funding for basic research have been cut back, corporate money has become more important in financing research. Corporations tend to support projects from which they can benefit directly.
> 
> According to some reports, the Donner Canadian Foundation has played a decisive role in fueling the right-wing intellectual assault of the 1990s (Rau, 1996). Since 1994, it has contributed over $2 million to support projects at the Fraser Institute, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Mackenzie Institute, and at a number of Canadian universities including the University of British Columbia, Carleton University, and the University of Calgary.


http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/21.4/taras.html

Many C D Howe studies have been criticized and the consensus seems to be that they do have a right-wing agenda.


> ...The standardized tests cited used in the analysis were never intended to measure the effect of class size and to use them for this purpose is inappropriate at best.....
> Interestingly, even the private schools that are so often lauded by right-wing think-tanks like the C D Howe Institute as the preferred model for education typically emphasize their ability to offer small class sizes and individualized attention.


http://www.thecanadianteacher.com/archives/137


> The right was led by the Conference Board of Canada (317 references), Fraser Institute (312 references), C.D. Howe Institute (270) and Business Council on National Issues (144). The leading left groups were Council of Canadians (121 references), Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (64), and Canadian Council on Social Development (57 references).


http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/research/newswatch/monitor/issue1.html



> The political party that is most in tune with the ideas of the C.D. Howe Institute is the Canadian Alliance.


http://www.jameslaxer.com/wakeup.htm



> When Martin, as finance minister, began to cut program spending in the mid-1990s, it was at the urging and influence of conservative think-tanks such as the Fraser Institute and C.D. Howe. But when he reformulated poverty policy, he did so after much consultation with the left-leaning Caledon Institute.


http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=775



> In March, The Council of Canadians held a series of meetings and public events across Canada to strategize and plan ways to counteract the agenda being propagated by Thomas D’Aquino of the CCCE and the C.D. Howe Institute. These meetings generated a lot of public interest and the discussions will be key in the formation of an emerging “sovereign Canada” movement.
> 
> These meetings also led to a plan for “A Citizen’s Inquiry into the Future of Canadian Sovereignty,” which will take place in fall 2004. This inquiry is planned to be a broad consultation of Canadians in all provinces and territories, which will allow people to share their concerns and vision for the future of Canada with local and national commissioners.
> 
> Canadians deserve more than right-wing think tanks and lobby groups voicing the wishes of corporate executives.


http://www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=coc_token&id=916&isdoc=1&catid=324



> Allan Gotlieb, Canada's former ambassador to the U.S., who is now chairman of the Donner Canadian Foundation, says the organization is still “the most significant contributor among foundations to policy studies in the country.” While he concurs that the Donner's funding for university-based research has declined, he emphasizes that the foundation continues to support groups like Winnipeg's Frontier Centre for Public Policy (focused on promoting fiscally conservative economic policies in the Prairies), the Toronto-based C.D. Howe Institute (a pro-market economic research centre), and the Fraser Institute. “I think the last five years has been very rich in support for these groups,” says Gotlieb. “I think the impact has been greater in the last few years than in earlier times.” As an example, Gotlieb cites the Montreal Economic Institute, the feisty voice of free markets in Quebec, which over the years has received, he says, “between $600,000 and $700,000” from the foundation.


http://www.daifallah.com/rcr.htm



> C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE
> Conservative support centre for pro-business policies.


http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2005/03/brains.php



> C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE
> Named after C.D. Howe, who went bankrupt building grain elevators in the 1930s, and later pioneered government/industry cooperation in 1956, building pipelines that transported oil and funneled public funds into corporate pockets. The C.D. Howe Institute surfaced in 1973, and is fond of accusing the Canada Pension Plan of being a pyramid scheme while insisting that the stock market and private sector banks aren't.


http://www.dooneyscafe.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Dictionary&file=index&letter=C



> There is another camp that can't believe the Conservative Party's "tax less and spend more" numbers. The latest critic on this front, amazingly, was the conservative C.D. Howe Institute. What next? Will the Fraser Institute call Stephen Harper's social conservatism extreme?


http://www.sobersecondthought.com/archives/002298.html



> On CBC, the Canada West Foundation has been called both "a group of influential western leaders" and an "interest group." On the national broadcaster, the C.D. Howe Institute was called a "business group" and "conservative." On CTV, C.D. Howe received positive labels. They were described as a "private economic think tank," a "leading economic think tank" and a "respected economic think tank."


http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/onbalance/1994/7-8/



> While Environment Probe claims to be funded by 8,000 individual supporters, it has also accepted money from the Donner Canadian Foundation (an ally of conservative think tanks the C.D. Howe Institute and The Fraser Institute) and the Michigan-based Earhart Foundation.


http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_02.27.03/news/brubaker.html



> In Canada, for example, there are about a dozen think-tanks, the best known of which are the right-wing CD Howe Institute and the arch-right-wing Fraser Institute, both of which are beholden to their corporate members and both of which are really nothing more more than corporatist lobby groups masquerading under a thin veneer of academic respectability.


http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/10/07.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, many of your links demonstrate what you consider credible to be. Also, many of the quotes demonstrate how you seem to be mixing up a few things.

Also, the full research report is at NBER:
HISTORY OF THE NBER

Founded in 1920, the National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

Over the years the Bureau's research agenda has encompassed a wide variety of issues that confront our society. The Bureau's early research focused on the aggregate economy, examining in detail the business cycle and long-term economic growth. Simon Kuznets' pioneering work on national income accounting, Wesley Mitchell's influential study of the business cycle, and Milton Friedman's research on the demand for money and the determinants of consumer spending were among the early studies done at the NBER.

THE NBER TODAY

The NBER is the nation's leading nonprofit economic research organization. Sixteen of the 31 American Nobel Prize winners in Economics and six of the past Chairmen of the President's Council of Economic Advisers have been researchers at the NBER. The more than 600 professors of economics and business now teaching at universities around the country who are NBER researchers are the leading scholars in their fields. These Bureau associates concentrate on four types of empirical research: developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the effects of public policies on the U.S. economy, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals.

ORGANIZATION OF THE NBER

The NBER is governed by a Board of Directors with representatives from the leading U.S. research universities and major national economics organizations. Other prominent economists from business, trade unions, and academe also sit on the Bureau's Board. Martin Feldstein is the NBER's President and Chief Executive Officer. In addition to the Research Associates and Faculty Research Fellows, the Bureau employs a support staff of 45. The Bureau's main office is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with additional offices in Palo Alto, California, and New York City.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, the Canadian Journal of Communications is the more interesting link. 

The other links you can assign whatever value you want. It's easy to say you are neutral, but don't make me laugh by trying to convince me that the C.D. Howe institute is... I expect more honesty from you...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, to return the favour of your list of random quotes that largely make my point for me, I'll post my look at your commentary, which I was planning on leaving alone because I thought you realized how meaningless (and a little embarassing) your commentary was.

My bits are in italics. Summary: a couple non-silly comments and a pile of silliness. AS, I've seen you demonstrate much better understanding and willingness to think about alternative views. We all have bad days.

....
But MacGuiver, since you want to play this sophist game, lets start with your report.

_This isn't sophistry, you just don't agree and don't want to discuss (as different from editorialise) actual evidence against. Big difference. 

soph·is·try (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

You seem to assume it's fallacious or misleading without reason (other than you don't like the CD Howe Institute and see neocons everywhere).
_

2 This survey is conducted by Statistics Canada, but the results in our paper represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Statistics Canada.

So right away, they admit to drawing up different views and conclusion using the same data as StatsCan.

_No, it is a disclaimer to ensure that people don't attribute this to StatsCan, which was just the data source (the surveyor). This is pretty standard and well-advised so people don't jump to conclusions...too late apparently.
_
Quote:
we focus on mothers in two-parent households, as opposed to single mothers or single fathers. The reason: it is difficult to separate out the effects of the Quebec childcare system for single parents, owing to the wide range of tax policy, child benefit, and social assistance changes in the past 10 years.

The focus should be on children - Also, removing single parents does show an obvious bias against people that greatly benefit from this program. 
_
This is the problem with lack of context. Academic-style is very focussed and they were clear on what they were looking at. They weren't studying everything, the were isolating a single factor as best they could (QC daycare) and including singles would have made that less effective for reasons stated. This is called research, not activism. 
_
Quote:
Our first major finding is that the Quebec program heavily subsidized the 
cost of childcare for middle- and high-income families: for typical two-parent families, ...

Of course it has. It's open to everyone. It has also helped low income families. 
_
Yes, but these programs are typically promoted as helping the poor. They are pointing out where a lot of the money goes.
_
Quote:
Second, subsidized childcare led to more mothers taking on paid work outside the home. This increase brings many benefits, such as raising the Quebec economy’s productive capacity and promoting the careers of women who might otherwise have only sporadic attachment to the labour force. It also generates more tax revenue; as a rough calculation we estimate new federal and provincial taxes offset about 40 percent of the cost of the program.

I hear outrage from Cons: "Oh no!, women have a choice... They are out of the kitchen, the world will end..."
_
I've already pointed out how silly this comment of yours is. Inferring for your own sake.
_
Quote:
We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children.

No clue what they studied, as the authors do not cite any sources. 
_
The full study (at the National Bureau of Economic Research -- care to dismiss them too?) has greater detail, as mentioned in their footnotes. Footnotes are important in the academic style.
_
Quote:
The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed,

A few decades ago, studies showed that stay-at-home mothers were more depressed. Of course, the "study" does not take into account how society has evolved over the past few decades, nor does it even measure the impact of poverty. 
_
Again, academic style is focus. This is a single paper. It takes much research and many papers to answer everything you seem to be expecting from one paper.
_
Quote:
Our findings constitute empirical evidence on the sometimes painful stress that families face as they seek to balance competing demands and expectations at work and home.

Empirical? You mean: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic... Also known as highly subjective...
_
Based on survey data. The same sort of surveys used to promote these types of programs and other social initiatives and issues. Again, the full study has more detail. 
From the ebrief:
Our study is based on data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. 2Our national sample of over 33,000 children covers newborns to 4-year-olds during the years from 1994 to 2002. The survey contains information on childcare use, parental labour market behaviour, and children and family health and behavioural measures. We compare the outcomes for children in Quebec to those of children in other parts of Canada, who act as a control group against whom to evaluate what we see in Quebec. We compare Quebec and the rest of Canada before and after the program was introduced in 1997. 
_
Quote:
One concern is that our findings reflect problems that families would face anyway when their children enter school; the universal childcare program simply hastened the day of reckoning. 

You mean to say that parents who also send their kids to private day care, may see the same results?
_
Maybe. Academic style is to lay out weaknesses and inconclusive areas as the authors see them, not blindly defend and lash out. Do you normally just read the looney activist/pundit websites and research? If so, then you'd be accustomed to an altogether different style. Maybe this style is better suited to critiquing Limbaugh.
_
Quote:
Also, it is important to stress that it may not be the type of childcare that 
drives the behavioural changes we observe; rather, it could be the combination of mother working and the child being in care.

So basically they are saying mothers should not work? Notice how it could of been both parent working, yet they focus on if the mother works. So we have a sexist study...
_
This is the problem with inference in academic style. They are saying what they are saying. It is not sexist, academic-style is generally dryly straight-forward. They aren't judging, they are again identifying possible alternative causality for what they saw in their analysis of the data.
_
Quote:
For this reason, our results cannot be used to make judgments about care by family members versus care in an institutional setting.

But wait, MacGuiver just wrote that he prefers to have Granny take care of the kids...
_
Uh, ok.
_
Quote:
Another possibility is that our findings reflect a change in how parents 
answer the survey questions, rather than a change in actual behaviour.

So all your conclusions are wrong, as they admit that they can't really measure the real impact. See, parents guilt may also play a role in influencing answers...
_
Again, academic style self-analyses for faults. If you see an academic paper that boldly claims or implies 100% certainty in its conclusions with no reservations, you should dig deeper. You are probably reading a looney activist paper at that point. 
_
Quote:
Finally, we were unable to study the longer term impact of the program, if 
any, on children’s outcomes.

So they may not be any long term impact? They seem to be able to make grandiose statements when it suits them... funny that...
_
They weren't making grandiose statements. They were identifying what they saw in the data. There hasn't been a long-term for this example yet, thus no data for it, thus 'unable to study'. If that's your standard, we'll have to wait 30 years before we dare apply the QC model elsewhere.
_
Quote:
Importantly, findings by other researchers indicate that cognitive abilities of children in daycare may be higher by the time children reach school age; especially if they come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Except that you prefer to omit that in your own study.
_
They mentioned it quite honestly instead of omitting the observations. I'm not sure why it isn't in their study, could be a data limitation or something else. Your quick judgment warrants your footwork into finding out why they omitted it. The description of the data above didn't mention scholastic/cognitive abilities, but the survey may include it. Check into it before you infer. Remember, they mentioned it because they thought it was important, even though it goes against their AS-neocon agenda!
_
Quote:
Conclusions 
While investigation of the Quebec model is in its infancy, preliminary evidence leaves it unclear, on balance, whether this program is what is best for children and their parents. 

It may not be the best for "children and their parents" - but it's a hell of a lot better than the Harper plan...
_
That's not what they were looking at. Is there comparable data on the Harper plan in Canada to isolate its affect? But you may be right. Not relevant to the focus of this study though.
_
Quote:
Adopting the Quebec model nationally would cost significantly more than 
the amounts any party proposed to spend in the recent election. Apotential 
expenditure of this magnitude demands careful understanding of the potential 
benefits.

Numbers are available for the Quebec model. Liberals used them. Seems the Cons went the more generous route of placing the amount at 10 000$/year.

Studies and conclusions have been done - look at all the provinces that signed onto the Liberal plan.
_
Potential benefits aren't fully understood. They're fully assumed by some I think there's enough logical reason to go forward. But there is definitely not a 'careful understanding'. Much more research should be done about something this important.
_
Quote:
Our research suggests that the spending would benefit primarily middle- 
and upper-income families, and would stimulate more work outside the home among mothers.

Wow, they wrote this twice in the report - so it must be important to them.
_
You mean their conclusions repeated some of the preceding text? Have you ever read an academic-style paper before? CD Howe stuff is really much 'lighter' (bridging the gap between journalism and academics), especially in a brief, and your out of context and 'reading between the lines' could be applied in even more silly quantities in a full academic paper. Happy trails!
_


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Also, the full research report is at NBER:
> HISTORY OF THE NBER





> December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times[1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.
> 
> "Reporter David Leonhardt found time to report that the bureau, headed by Martin S. Feldstein, guru to Bush-economics, is the 'nation's premier economic research organization,' but couldn't do a simple Google search to determine where it gets its money.
> 
> ...


http://www.disinfopedia.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research



> John M. Olin Foundation
> 
> The John M. Olin Foundation, based in New York, was established in 1953 by John Merrill Olin (1892-1982), inventor, industrialist, conservationist, and philanthropist.
> In 2001, the Foundation expended $20,482,961 to fund right-wing think tanks.
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, the Canadian Journal of Communications is the more interesting link.
> 
> The other links you can assign whatever value you want. It's easy to say you are neutral, but don't make me laugh by trying to convince me that the C.D. Howe institute is... I expect more honesty from you...


Yes, they are 'right' wing in their economics, according to the typical Canadian lingo. There is no 'neutral' in public policy. I apologise if I used that word. They very credibly apply market-based economics to policy promotion (the quote mentioning advising Martin was particularly funny -- of course they did! They promote fiscal sustainability). They are highly respected. 

You honestly need to separate your ideology and politics from how you evaluate credibility. 

It's truly funny that we both expected more from each other tonight! :lmao: 
Good times. We should disappoint each other more often.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So now you're going to dismiss NBER too? How about pulling out a funding list for U of T, seeing all the big businessmen, and then ignoring everything the university does! NBER has a lot of top notch researchers. If you're going to limit yourself to CCPA and some really looney sites, you're not going gain much knowledge. CCPA actually isn't too bad, when they're not being shrill.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, the main problem with the C.D. Howe report, as I see it, is that it is being quoted out of context and wrong conclusion are being put forward by journalists. 
It is hardly a neutral paper as it has an agenda to push. C.D. Howe is a right wing influence think tank, as should be viewed as such. 

If it has not been done, means-testing would be interesting. I don't like removing the universality of the program even knowing the potential for abuse.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> So now you're going to dismiss NBER too?


I thought I just had  



Beej said:


> How about pulling out a funding list for U of T, seeing all the big businessmen, and then ignoring everything the university does!


That would be another thread. Some funding is neutral, but at times I have done unpaid research for professors who either sold it or used it in their private enterprises. Research that is available to all, I have no objections to. Biased or dishonest research is something else.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, the main problem with the C.D. Howe report, as I see it, is that it is being quoted out of context and wrong conclusion are being put forward by journalists.
> ...
> It is hardly a neutral paper as it has an agenda to push. C.D. Howe is a right wing influence think tank, as should be viewed as such.
> ...
> If it has not been done, means-testing would be interesting. I don't like removing the universality of the program even knowing the potential for abuse.


Agreed.
...
If, by right wing, you mean market-type economics, yes (very sloppy usage of terminology by me, my profs would be pissed!). Credibility is not 'right' or 'left'. I consider Pembina to be quite credible (they drop the occasional steaming pile) and head and shoulders above their 'peers' (e.g. Parkland). 

Read the material with a real eye for analysis, not editorialising, and you'll see the CD Howe stuff is quite good and reasonable, from their 'right wing' approach. Their stuff is worth reading for understanding, not necessarily agreeing.
...
I actually like the universality aspect (there's a little egalitarian buried somewhere in my bowels  ). It fits nicely with my 'equal opportunity' sentiment. Society should give everybody a reasonable start (will never be fully equal, the loss of freedom and choices for families in achieving that is too great) and a solid, but not comfy, safety net. Then see what people accomplish with their efforts, choices and some luck.

I do think the means testing option should be explored though. When you're talking billions, competing priorities are a huge factor.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Biased or dishonest research is something else.


We may disagree on what 'biased' means in practice. Dishonest: I would hope we agree on what this is.

BTW: NBER stuff is publicly available. I think there's a small charge though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Well, that was exhausting! Hopefully everybody now knows a lot more about very little. 

AS: I'd still like a definition for neocon from you. You throw the term around a lot, but I haven't got a feel for what you mean by it.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting. I have certainly never considered CD Howe to be overly credible. The slant that they put on things is quite accute at times. But, as with virtually all research, it is simply reflective of the bias with which they view the world. There are other, equally biased research sources with the opposite slant. They just don't have nearly as much money or influence as CD Howe, which does tend to make me view CD Howe as a far greater negative influence. The CD Howe institute universally begins with the assumption that free market is the panacea cure, in my experience. When I want to know how that sector of the world thinks, they are useful. But I would certainly never reach a conclusion on anything based solely on what they have to say.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Credibility is in the work itself, not their view of the world. Too much work out there, that I see linked here sometimes, is based on rhetoric, simple unquestioned correlation, anecdotes and not much else, except for bile. No real indication that the writers critically evaluated their own work or were willing to openly discuss important weaknesses...the editorial/journalistic approach. It works for punditry and political strategy discussion, but not for public policy discussion.

There appears to be a view by some that credibility is in how one's world view aligns with anothers' (in practice, not explicitly stated). Whether or not the reader's world view aligns with the writer's is not too important, unless one just wants to read stuff they agree with and 'myth-bust' stuff they don't agree with. This is all too common on the web.

Your final line, RevMatt is particularly good and should be applied to all public policy reading. I wish more people approached public policy topics this way:
But I would certainly never reach a conclusion on anything based solely on what they have to say.

'They' is anybody in my book.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

People should stop saying "Harper is dismantling childcare in Canada."

It isn't true.

You should say "Canadians who voted for Harper are dismantling childcare in Canada" or, if it was you, "I am dismantling..." or "We are dismantling..."

Live up to your responsibility.

Welcome to 1955.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> People should stop saying "Harper is dismantling childcare in Canada."
> 
> It isn't true.
> 
> ...


Excellent point. Not precisely sure what the 1955 reference is, though. But yes, in so far as Harper is doing what he said he would, the fault (or credit) lies with those who voted for him, ultimately. The cabinet appointments are all him, though


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Stay at home moms circa 1955....aka Father Knows Best et al


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Excellent point. Not precisely sure what the 1955 reference is, though. But yes, in so far as Harper is doing what he said he would, the fault (or credit) lies with those who voted for him, ultimately. The cabinet appointments are all him, though


I should have said, "Welcome to the 1950s."

After women found independence serving their country in factories and in the usual male-dominated jobs, they were forced back into servitude as baby-makers and housekeepers. It was just expected that men coming back from the war would be entitled to their jobs back.

Same with this method of childcare: pay women who stay at home to raise their kids. Nothing wrong with that, it just gets them out of the work force for years, and they miss out on promotions, funding to pensions for this period of time, and a lot of independence. Nothing wrong for them as chooses this, but why would you choose it for $25 per week? Because Harper thinks it is better for you?

Oh, and before you say men will stay at home and collect the $25 per week--yeah, right.


----------



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

"Stay at home moms circa 1955....aka Father Knows Best et al". Interesting, in real life Robert Young (Jim Anderson) was an alcoholic, Laurin Chapin (Kathy "Kitten" Anderson) became a heroin addict, and Billy Gray (Bud Anderson) had his squeaky-clean image shattered when he was arrested for possession of "marijuana seed and residue."


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Stay at home moms circa 1955....aka Father Knows Best et al


So are parents who *choose* to stay home and raise their children some how stuck in the '50s? Is raising your own children not a valid choice?

As stated before, I don't see why a govenment program should favour one choice over the other, and while I have no problem with subsidised daycare for those who could not otherwise make ends meet, I don't see the sense in funding daycare for well off families with public funds.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> So are parents who *choose* to stay home and raise their children some how stuck in the '50s? Is raising your own children not a valid choice?


I don't see where anyone wrote that. All I have seen is people infer that using day care somehow makes you less of a parent.




PenguinBoy said:


> As stated before, I don't see why a govenment program should favour one choice over the other,


And yet, the $1200 bribe will be favouring one choice.... I don't hear any opposition or proposed compromises....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And yet, the $1200 bribe will be favouring one choice.... I don't hear any opposition or proposed compromises....


I think the choice being referred to is work vs home. The $1200 applies in both cases so doesn't really favour one over the other. It's a targetted tax cut/income supplement. It does, however, favour kids over no kids.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

For all the anti-public daycare morons writing in this thread, you do realize that if you make more than $5K a year, these daycares are *not* subsidized for you?

This means that even a so-called subsidized childcare centre is still charging 90% of the people who use it anywhere from $500 to $1400 per month per child, depending on their age (infants cost $1400, 4 year olds less, and so on).

Who can afford $1000 per month for childcare without two parents' income?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And yet, the $1200 bribe will be favouring one choice.... I don't hear any opposition or proposed compromises....


Not true -- everyone gets the $1200 "Bribe", whilst stay at home parents get nothing from socialized daycare.

The "Bribe" gives a small benefit to everyone, socialized daycare gives a large benefit to some, and nothing to others.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> For all the anti-public daycare morons writing in this thread, you do realize that if you make more than $5K a year, these daycares are *not* subsidized for you?


Wouldn't adjusting the subsidies also be a viable option?

And why are those who don't share your views automatically "morons"?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Apparently Canada has quickly progressed from not having a national day care plan to the point where those who oppose it are morons (of course the Liberal deals wouldn't have created full universal daycare, but that's beside the point). All in about 2 years. Or maybe those who opposed it were always morons because, uh, well, just because I guess. That's interesting.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Who can afford $1000 per month for childcare without two parents' income?


Well, I guess that's the point, isn't it? It all comes down to a choice of where you spend your time to earn money and where you spend your money to buy other people's time. 

Because money is just a method of buying someone else's time or talent. Money isn't anything more than that. It's a method of determining value - just the value of the time & materials that have gone into producing something.

Right now, apparently, parenting your own children has no value.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Right now, apparently, parenting your own children has no value.


What a load of BS - it's really annoying hearing that. I have yet to hear anyone say that. Yet sanctimonious Con supporters keep on spewing that forth. It's a kind of selfish mantra from some.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Well, you can get a tax deduction for paying someone else to raise your children, but parents cannot 'share income' to lower the overall tax rate paid by the family.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Originally Posted by MacDoc
> Stay at home moms circa 1955....aka Father Knows Best et al
> So are parents who *choose* to stay home and raise their children some how stuck in the '50s? Is raising your own children not a valid choice?


a) I was answering a question not making a manifesto poster.

b) Yes it's a "choice"..so is home schooling.. - that said I happen to think early daycare and edu is a better choice for a variety of reasons and deserves a reasonable cost national program ala Quebec.

That reasoning has nothing to do with my post quoted above.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Well, you can get a tax deduction for paying someone else to raise your children, but parents cannot 'share income' to lower the overall tax rate paid by the family.


The problem is that this doesn't really address that, either. Yes, there should be some way of acknowledging the time that the stay at home parent puts in. Your idea of sharing the income is brilliant. This is simply too little money to be much worth talking about. That's the problem - any system that involves giving money back is never really going to be a significant amount, because it is a horribly inefficient way to solve any problem. Don't want a national daycare program? Fine. Then make daycare expenses completely tax deductible, no cap. And allow a stay at home parent to share the income of the working one. Split evenly. I may prefer the good socialist option, but there are other ways to be flexible that still address the basic problem. The current plan is simply bad.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I really think the issue needs to be viewed as an extension of the public education system.

All participate in the funding whether they have kids or not as it's very beneficial overall to society to have a universal and relatively standardized education for all. Just as with post secondary edu - there is nothing wrong with a mix of gov and pay to use to make the system affordable.

I'm sure most would not support handing a lump sum over for education as a whole.

Parents that choose and can afford may opt for a private system or to home school but they still contribute to the public system.
In my mind, as with Quebec, the public system of daycare should be made available as it's a critical social priority just as education overall is.

The issues of families with kids needing tax breaks and income sharing for stay at home spouses CAN be best addressed through the income tax system. If it's not fairly structured to represent the family unit with a single income earner then THAT is a separate discussion and an important one.
But should not be tangled with access to early edu/daycare as it would not be with post secondary edu access and affordability.

Quebec has the right of it and all the citizens of Canada should benefit from their world recognized accomplishment.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Quebec has the right of it and all the citizens of Canada should benefit from their world recognized accomplishment.


Charest seems to be under some pressure and is using doublespeak and trying to twist this daycare question.


> Jean Charest can't recall PM Stephan Harper using the term "transition" in their conversation about the termination of a federal funding deal for Quebec's daycare program.
> Quebec Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Benoit Pelletier added that a "transition" is not what the province is looking for. "There is no discussion about any transition agreement or anything else," he said.


Mixed messages from elected officials is nothing new, but I really wonder what Charest is drinking when I heard the following quote:



> "As far as I know, the new government does not question Canada's adhesion to Kyoto," Charest said. "It is the action plan they question"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think Charest did clearly state the QC system isn't conditional on Federal funding -- they're keeping it either way. They would, of course, like the money though. I was half-watching this on the evening news...anybody else hear about this?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Daycare falls under Quebec's jurisdiction - but he also added "We have an agreement with financial implications". They are expecting Federal money "We are optimistic about finding a reasonable solution to this issue". 
Daycare will be cut without the promised funds. Quebec's economy sucks that badly.

Now, our parental leave program has a $1-bilion budget wonder if they will start to transfer money from there and/or reduce it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Daycare falls under Quebec's jurisdiction - but he also added "We have an agreement with financial implications". They are expecting Federal money "We are optimistic about finding a reasonable solution to this issue".
> Daycare will be cut without the promised funds. Quebec's economy sucks that badly.
> 
> Now, our parental leave program has a $1-bilion budget wonder if they will start to transfer money from there and/or reduce it.


I wonder if Quebec's 5-week paternity leave will survive.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> I wonder if Quebec's 5-week paternity leave will survive.


Manny, parental leave is 75% of your salary (up to $57 000) for 32 weeks for the birth of a child and 37 weeks in the case of an adoption....


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

ArtistSeries said:


> Manny, parental leave is 75% of your salary (up to $57 000) for 32 weeks for the birth of a child and 37 weeks in the case of an adoption....


Yes, but as of 01/01/2006 Quebec introduced a Paternal (fathers only) leave of 5 weeks @ 70% of your salary.

EDIT: PARENTAL LEAVE: QUEBEC MOVES AHEAD



> The plan's benefits are:
> 
> *	Maternity leave: 18 weeks at 70% of income. For birth mothers only.
> *	Paternity leave: 5 weeks at 70% of income. For birth fathers only.
> ...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I really think the issue needs to be viewed as an extension of the public education system.


Now I think I understand your objection to ditching the program!

Despite my ******* tendancies, I believe public education is a good thing.

I also think that early childhood education is quite different from daycare -- it doesn't run all year, or for as many hours, and it is not offered to *very* young childern.

I could see funding a nursery school program, but I think folks that need year round care for 8-10 hours a day, or for very young children, should pay their own way at market rates. I don't mind a subsidy for those in need, but I don't want my tax money used to make it easier for some yuppy mommy to lease a Lincoln Navigator.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> I don't mind a subsidy for those in need, but I don't want my tax money used to make it easier for some yuppy mommy to lease a Lincoln Navigator.


This seems to be a common cry. There will always be abuse of the system, and it does happen that some use $7/day daycare as cheap babysitting. I don't like it anymore than you do. Are you do punish all because of some of abuse the system?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> This seems to be a common cry. There will always be abuse of the system, and it does happen that some use $7/day daycare as cheap babysitting. I don't like it anymore than you do. Are you do punish all because of some of abuse the system?


No, I would propose a means test to get a subsidy for daycare, and I wouldn't make daycare a universal benefit. I would restrict the subsidy to those that could not otherwise make ends meet.

Also, as stated above, I don't mind public early childhood education, but this would provide nowhere near the number of hours of supervision needed for someone who was working full time, and doesn't usually apply to children under about age four.

I think daycare facilities need to be regulated to ensure a good standard of care, but I also think that those who use them should pay the full market rate, except for the folks eligible for a subsidy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If you just flip over post secondary where there are loans and other help and apply it to the early edu system it gives a framework to base help on.

BTW if viewed as an extension of education system the subsidized Mercedes mom issue goes away too.......ALL kids benefit from early socialization and education outside the home....not to mention there are health benefits in socialization.

Also you then view people who opt out just as we view those who choose to home school.
Quebec has a good plan, an affordable plan, recognized around the world for it's excellence.
Surely we can take that ball and run with it.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> BTW if viewed as an extension of education system the subsidized Mercedes mom issue goes away too.......ALL kids benefit from early socialization and education outside the home....not to mention there are health benefits in socialization.


Early childhood education != daycare

As I mentioned earlier, it involves fewer hours, for a narrower range of ages.

I see the value in Early childhood education, we paid out of pocket for the same for our daughter back in the day, even though we had a stay at home parent in our house. But it was only a couple of hours a day, through part of the year -- nowhere near enough to allow someone to work full time.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Our kids tended to go for what would be a normal full school day after the first year and many schools incorporated extended hours into their daycare facilities.

The key is flexibility and trained staff so that education is a part of the daytime experience but not entirely - playtime and free time is also important.

Some parents choose 1/2 day kindergarten, some 1/2 day daycare - the idea is to have staff and space with a set of guidelines to achieve educational and care levels at affordable prices and flexible hours.

It's getting everyone into the headspace that this is part and parcel of the educational system.
There are adult edu programs that are part time and full time, university or college, apprentice programs....etc etc

This needs to be included in the spectrum of educational and employment services for citizens no less than the others are and parents can contribute and choose just as they do with the other programs........but there needs a national program just as there is for colleges and the other programs offered.

It's more a headspace issue than anything else....Quebec has it right. :clap:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Well, like I said, I don't mind funding the *education* portion from the public purse.

The daycare portion should be fully paid by parents, at the market rate, otherwise the system discriminates against stay at home parents who derive no benefit from daycare.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Well, like I said, I don't mind funding the *education* portion from the public purse.
> 
> The daycare portion should be fully paid by parents, at the market rate, otherwise the system discriminates against stay at home parents who derive no benefit from daycare.


Sounds good. Do you have kids in school? Okay, _all_ the educational taxes are now going to be paid by you.

Do you drive or take the bus? Then you should pay all the taxes for fixing roads.

Ever been sick? That's right, you get to fund all of the healthcare now also.

Planning to retire? Use an airport? Cross a border? Are you getting this now?

The fact is that socialized daycare, even a small duration of daycare, helps kids get along and reduces social problems across the board.

Daycare should be fully funded. Remember that the next time someone helps you cross the street.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly. :clap:
It also has many positive consequences for single parent families and reducing the cost of welfare and UI allowing more people to work knowing their kids are cared for.

Huge gains....something in the neighbourhood of $8 benefit down the road for every $1 spent - the leverage is enormous.

Remember like post secondary this is not FREE but it needs to be AFFORDABLE and with some consistency.

Not all go to university or college but they are funded through a mix of pay as you go and public funding to make it affordable and accessible.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Sounds good. Do you have kids in school? Okay, _all_ the educational taxes are now going to be paid by you.
> 
> Do you drive or take the bus? Then you should pay all the taxes for fixing roads.
> 
> ...


The examples you give are all what I would consider "essential services"; daycare, IMO, is not.

Fully funded daycare favours those who work outside the home, whilst penalizing those who choose to care for their own children.

There are already other examples of policies that discriminate against single income families, for example, daycare expenses are deductible, but a single wage earner can not split income with his or her stay at home spouse, even though the lost wages of having one parent stay at home *FAR* exceeeds the cost of daycare.

Government policy on this should be neutral, and not favour one group over another.

Again, no issues with a subsidy for those in need, or for fully funded ECS.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> There are already other examples of policies that discriminate against single income families, for example, daycare expenses are deductible, but a single wage earner can not split income with his or her stay at home spouse, even though the lost wages of having one parent stay at home *FAR* exceeeds the cost of daycare.
> 
> Government policy on this should be neutral, and not favour one group over another.


Perhaps a family unit should be taxed as a single unit. For example, they could 'double up' on the tax brackets. I haven't thought this through and that seems extreme, but some realignment of the tax system to treat 'households' as taxpayers, not 'individuals'. It would certainly screw me over even more so than now, but it would at least be clear as compared to the current mess of vague rhetoric and complex codes. Single people may not stick around to see the end result though...Tough choices all around. Seems easier and more vote-friendly not to make those choices.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> The examples you give are all what I would consider "essential services"; daycare, IMO, is not.
> 
> Fully funded daycare favours those who work outside the home, whilst penalizing those who choose to care for their own children.


Welcome to 2006. Daycare is essential. You might as well say that homecare "penalizes" women who stay at home to provide care--and the vast majority providing homecare are of course female.

If it isn't Stephen Harper's intention to keep women at home caring for kids with this handout, what the hell is his intention?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Why ISN'T daycare as essential to society as schooling?? Some choose to keep their kids home for that as well.

Some don't drive either. I never take public transit ( rarely ) I expect to pay some taxes for those services.
Never been in a community hockey rink.......the list goes on and on. Remember not free......affordable.

The family income taxation situation does need to be addressed 100% - if corporations can shelter so should families be able to tho programs like educational and retirement sheltering are excellent.

Family law and family tax law needs much work...not bandaid patches here and there.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Beej said:


> Perhaps a family unit should be taxed as a single unit. For example, they could 'double up' on the tax brackets.


Now *that* would be an initiative I could support!


----------

