Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next

Have you ever been the primary caregiver for a child 24/7 for their entire existence?




Have you ever had to have a job where you've been 100% responsible to provide ALL of your needs (including tuiton, books, etc.)




Easily agreeable statement, not in the context though.



Not going to happen, that's for sure.



Then please do not reiterate your opinion, that is until you are more informed.



Putting your child FIRST is not "selfish" or "ignorant"; if you were a parent, you would know that.

   

Not for their entire life, and unless your kids are dead, and I am really sorry if they are, neither have you.




Have you ever had to have a job where you've been 100% responsible to provide ALL of your needs (including tuiton, books, etc.)
[/quote]
Yes.


Glad we agree


Are you really putting your child first if you cannot work because you have to stay at home with them instead of putting them in daycare? You will be on welfare, is that really what you would want for your child?

Are you honestly implying that you never put your children, I am assuming you have one or more, in daycare, never had a babysitter come over to watch them so that you and your wife could go out alone, or even go to a doctors appt alone?

   

Your arguments are those of a 12-year-old playing the semantics game.

Is that a "no"? Not one entire week? Or not even for 24 hours?

   

For 2 months.

   

Existence would be defined as the entire existence to date. So yes, we have raised our children for their entire existence.

We have made use of a babysitter on limited occasions and have had family watch the kids as well. What does that have to do with all the taxpayers funding daycares run by the government?

Tax breaks work for EVERYONE, cash to the parents benefit ALL PARENTS, government funded and run daycares only benefit single parents or families with both parents working concurrent shifts.

That single parent can work the job, and with either the tax incentive or cash back they can direct that to wherever they see fit. Low income single parents already recieve very large federal child tax benefits, as well as GST rebates, and they pay very low income taxes (if any at all). With all of that, plus the extra cash or even more tax breaks, they can choose what "daycare" method they want to make use of.

   

And that makes you an expert? Or even remotely knowledgeable on the topic?

If it does then I must have my black belt in karate, because when I was 12 I took lessons for about 2 or 3 months.

   

Of course it does not mean that I am an expert, I never said I was.

My point was, that from my perspective, it is not going to help people that much to get 1200 back, when you consider how many people it helps to have childcare for their children. People treat single mothers so horribly, but they have no right to. You dont know what their situation is, or how they got to where they are. You have no right to judge. The children that are helped by this really need it. It is not something that would be nice so that they could enjoy themselves, it allows them to get jobs so that they can provide for their family. You may not need it, but they do.

   

Your statement "We've all raised kids" implied that you were knowledgeable on the topic.




The numbers again:

Tax Break = Helps EVERYONE

$1200/child under 6 = helps ALL PARENTS

Gov't daycare = helps ONLY those who choose to use it



Who treats single mothers so horribly? People on this forum? People in society?
What about single fathers?
What about a couple that is a single income earning family? Would they not have an extra person to provide for on just a single income? Why shouldn't they get your outpouring as well?



Nothing is better for a child than time with his or her parent(s).



Why do only they need your "help"?
Why didn't they get their training before they had children? Then they could already provide for themselves no questions asked; or do you not believe they can be self sufficient?

   

I am getting the impression that folks think there is already a national daycare program. Well there ain't. Ottawa promised 5 billion over however many years it was to the provinces to use as they each saw fit to provide daycare. That works out to about 35 bucks a year per person or about what? 100 to 200 bucks a year depending on family size.

   

what the hell kind of answer is that? I think the question was, have you been the sole provider for a child, from the day they were born to present day.



You know, you are my worst nightmare and the BEST example of why I am raising my child and not some stranger- if I've done my job correctly, my daughter will NEVER be like you.



who said ANYTHING about being on welfare?



Yes. The only other people who have looked after my kids would be their uncle or their grandparents. People who love them and care about them.

   

To be knowledgable is not the same as being an expert. I think I am knowledgable, at lsat somewhat, I have helped raise one for over 10 years now.

It is a matter of degree though. Yes giving every parent with a child under 6 helps all of those parents, not all parents, but all of the ones in that group. It helps them a little. But when you compare that to how much it helps low income families, it helps them a lot more, so much more that it is rediculous to even compare it. If you look back at the numbers that I calculated, it will cost over 100k to put a child in daycare until the age of 11. 1200 is almost nothing compared to that. So a family that could already afford everything that they need gets a little bonus so maybe they can put it towards a new computer or vacation, but it is not vital to their survival. To families that barely make enough to survive, it is a huge difference.

I comepletely agree. I chose single mothers because they are one of the groups of people that would be helped by this, and I have a friend who is in that category who I think of a lot when we talk about htis subject. But you are correct, all low income families are included.

So it is better for a child or parent to go hungry because the mother or father has to stay home and take care of that child because they cannot afford daycare and thus cannot work? Dont you think that is a little rediculous. And if the best thing for a child is their parents, well then that is all they should have, lets just leave all children in their houses with their parents forever and never have any social interaction with other children. Of course that is rediculous. But that is what you are implying would be good. Good daycare is good for children, it teaches them social interactions at an earlier age which is beneficial.


Hey, in an ideal situation, I think people shoudl have to pass a test to be parents. Psychometric tests to look at amusive tendencies, as well as other things. But, in reality that is not going to happen now, or anytime soon, if ever. There are a lot of factors that are out of our control. Rape, people getting layed off, spousal abuse, having to take care of an elderly parent, and numerous other things that can impact on these situations. Of course it would be great if everybody were well educated and waited until they were in a good sitaution to have children. But that is not nor will it soon be the case for everybody. Of course there should be prevenentitive programs, but at the same time you have to deal withthe situation at hand. Which is that these people need help.

As of yet, you have made me defend my reasoning, but you have not defended yours, you have presented no good argument as to how having this childcare program significantly harms people. And not having 1200 is not a sufficient reason, as I have already adressed.

   

Ok, can I take this one, guys?

2 WHOLE FREAKING MONTHS!?!?!?! WOW!!! Forgive my rant before then, because I bow down to your parenting expertise.

Do you live in Canada? Do you know that there are ALREADY subsidies for low-single income earners that are available provincially (daycare jurisdiction).

you say we have no right to judge, we don't know their situation, yet this is EXACTLY what you did with me and my choice, and then threw in some stereotypical assumptions for good measure.

you are young, and I remember what it was like to be your age. Guess what? You'll grow up. Call me in about 10 years, after you've had a kid or two (if you choose to) and I'll bet you any money your views will change. Women can have it all- just not all at once, unless you want burnout.

   

Training costs are high.......unless.....

You get pregnant, have you child, go on welfare, get a child allowance, ask for re-training, receive re-training, all tuition free, payed for by the taxpayer, childcare free.
Finish one course, do not find a job, start another course and before you know it your child is attending school full time. This is quite common with the students I have taught.

Oh I forgot, whilst your on your course, find a live in boyfriend who has a full time job and pays the rent.

Such is our welfare society.

Now after saying all that, some single mothers have more pride and work very hard to make ends meet. I have also taught these people (a pleasure).
Guess who does well and finds a good job afterwards.

   

[quote="zojorca]
As of yet, you have made me defend my reasoning, but you have not defended yours, you have presented no good argument as to how having this childcare program significantly harms people. And not having 1200 is not a sufficient reason, as I have already adressed.[/quote]

1. Longitudinal study of the first phase of daycare children (just entering the workforce) showed they lack insight, creative thinking, initiative. Their bosses stated that many needed to be told what to do. Compare this to the non-daycare kids who did have this in spades. Researchers concluded that the rigorous structure of daycare, along with the practicality of needing everyone to do the same thing due to ratios led daycare children to grow up to be less innovative workers

2. Study in Quebec tested children on aggression, mood and parents on mood. Found that children in daycare were more aggressive than non-daycare kids. Study also found that parents of daycare kids were more stressed and more depressed compared to non-daycare kids.

3. Daycare kids, on average, get more colds, fevers, ear infections compared to non-daycare kids.

4. What happens to the single parent shift worker? How does she get her kid looked after with the liberal plan? Or the low income earners who live in rural areas? Both would not benefit from the liberal plan.

5. Liberal plan only gives the money to the provinces- and they can do what they wish with that money. If they feel that the money should go to increase ECE salaries, how does that increase spaces? Increase quality? Increase regulations? How does that directly benefit the child?

just to start.....

   

Keep reading, I know I am not a full time parent I never tried to say I was. I jsut think that being a stay at home mom or whatever pc term you want to use for it is a lot easier than bing a working mom. Being a working mom you have to work all day then come home and cram all of the activities a nonworking mom does all day into a lot less time. It is a lot harder. Ive been taking care of myself for a long time, Ive been working since I was 14 and have been on my own since I was 17. Ive been workign and going to school. Of course that is not as hard as having a child at the same time, but my point is that I am not just mooching off my parents, I have been taking care of my self for a while now. And form my perspective your life looks pretty damned easy. Im not saying that you dont have stresses of your own, raising kids is a whole lot of work. But at the same time, you have somebody to support you, you always have food on the table, a roof over your head, and if you are sick for a week you dont have to worry about not being about to pay the rent or buy groceries. That is the luxury of your situation. But not everybody is near so lucky.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 9  Next