Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem is not with minding the kids, but that too many parents don't KNOW how to parents kids effective and may not provide the right kind of support even if they stay home. Hence helping parents learn to parent.

Basically the problem is, even if we don't want to care for their kids, they become society's problem when they become incarcerated or unemployed. So the question is how do we help parents, parent best themselves.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
Studies on this, reports on that. What a bunch of crap! Want a childcare policy? Here ya go-" if you want kids, one parent should stay home and look after them". Why the hell should the federal gov't have a "policy"? They pretty much screw up most things they do, why let them screw up your kids too. You make the choice to have kids, you be responsible for raising them.

Agreed.

If the various levels of government would stop sticking their noses into areas which are none of their business and abandon all the idiotic Trudeautopian social engineering programs like Status of Women, they could afford to cut taxes so much that those who have children could afford to choose whether to have one parent stay at home to raise the kids OR to pay a reasonable wage to a private daycare if both parents work.

-Mac
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
The problem is not with minding the kids, but that too many parents don't KNOW how to parents kids effective and may not provide the right kind of support even if they stay home. Hence helping parents learn to parent.


I agree that "helping parents learn to parent" is worthwhile in many cases and could help society in many cases in the long run. But there is no need for more gov't intervention. There are already many resources available to parents who need help with how to parent, starting with their own parents, then other relatives, friends, neighbors, doctors, nurses, teachers, social services, the library, internet...etc. At the most basic level, kids need love and discipline 24/7. A parent at home goes a long way to providing that. If there is a role for more gov't, it should be in providing incentives for a "stay at home" parent, not the reverse.

hamiltonguyo wrote:
Basically the problem is, even if we don't want to care for their kids, they become society's problem when they become incarcerated or unemployed. So the question is how do we help parents, parent best themselves.

I would suggest that those kids who grow up to be "society's problem" come mostly from parents who really didn't give a dam about them in the first place or had their own "issues" to deal with. Being a better parent would not likely be on their list of priorities.
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:
The problem is not with minding the kids, but that too many parents don't KNOW how to parents kids effective and may not provide the right kind of support even if they stay home. Hence helping parents learn to parent.


I agree that "helping parents learn to parent" is worthwhile in many cases and could help society in many cases in the long run. But there is no need for more gov't intervention. There are already many resources available to parents who need help with how to parent, starting with their own parents, then other relatives, friends, neighbors, doctors, nurses, teachers, social services, the library, internet...etc. At the most basic level, kids need love and discipline 24/7. A parent at home goes a long way to providing that. If there is a role for more gov't, it should be in providing incentives for a "stay at home" parent, not the reverse.

hamiltonguyo wrote:
Basically the problem is, even if we don't want to care for their kids, they become society's problem when they become incarcerated or unemployed. So the question is how do we help parents, parent best themselves.

I would suggest that those kids who grow up to be "society's problem" come mostly from parents who really didn't give a dam about them in the first place or had their own "issues" to deal with. Being a better parent would not likely be on their list of priorities.


See the whole point of the policy advocated is to place these resources together in an easily accessible place and encourage parents to access the resources. Many parents can be poor parents unintentionally, even if they care, because half the time they don't know what's wrong. For example, studies show many learning disability and behavioral problems if identified early can be prevented. How, many parents know the signs that show their kid may be at risk of developing one BEFORE it develops and becomes much harder, and more expensive to deal with?

An interesting idea i have heard regarding childcare, practiced in some countries, is a group of mothers will go back to work part time. One or more will always be at home with all the children, providing a loving, family environment as opposed to state-institutional daycare.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the record, I really like my local Early Years centre and use it at least once a month. I used to go once a week to have the baby weighed, her development tracked and to get her vaccinations.

We usually stuck around in their playroom and let her get used to playing with other kids.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whenever the state gets involved in parenting, things go wrong. The vast majority of parents in this country are very good, however it is the left who want a child care policy because they want a band-aid solution to the “feminization” of society. For over 40 years now, women have been taught that they are able to raise children on their own, and have become very anti-male, and hence anti-father. The problem which this creates is that single parent’s can’t do it by themselves a lot of the time. So what does the left propose? A national child care strategy! However we see time and time again that the state fails when they end up raise the children in their most formative years. Child care strategy should remain a family strategy. It benefits the child to stay close to the people he or she knows.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, I have seen a lot of virtue lately in non-profits that operate with minimal government funding (like an 80/20 split). This could be a decent way of tackling a lot of issues like this. If child care must involve the government, this is the only way I see being reasonable.

Of course, I think the best way to make child care more affordable is to let people keep more of their money.

Tax cuts ARE a childcare plan 8)
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing i like about this plan though is it isn't the state taking over childcare. Its the state helping parents parent better.

The thing is basically from my point of view is that regardless of why, most parents lack SOME of the resources to guarantee the best outcomes for their children. Each child helped early in life, is one less that has to be helped later in life (ie. behavioral. problems and learning disabilities in public school or jail). Non-profits are great but there should be encouraged integration with a system. Why? Because we have all the fundamentals but it just hasn't been brought together fully.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
The thing i like about this plan though is it isn't the state taking over childcare. Its the state helping parents parent better.

The thing is basically from my point of view is that regardless of why, most parents lack SOME of the resources to guarantee the best outcomes for their children. Each child helped early in life, is one less that has to be helped later in life (ie. behavioral. problems and learning disabilities in public school or jail). Non-profits are great but there should be encouraged integration with a system. Why? Because we have all the fundamentals but it just hasn't been brought together fully.

Why would you want any level of government involved in child care, no matter how small that role might be? Governments have consistently proved themselves to be better at building bureaucracies than caring for the needs of individuals.

-Mac
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless you can find a charity to provide these resources who else will. That said basically a large part is simply reorganizing the current bureaucracy to work better, harder and more effectively.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
Unless you can find a charity to provide these resources who else will. That said basically a large part is simply reorganizing the current bureaucracy to work better, harder and more effectively.

I would suggest a charity would provide the services more quickly, efficiently and compassionately than any government... especially faith-based charities... and at a fraction of the cost because they don't feel a need for the elaborate bureaucracy and (best of all) no union.

-Mac
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:
Unless you can find a charity to provide these resources who else will. That said basically a large part is simply reorganizing the current bureaucracy to work better, harder and more effectively.

I would suggest a charity would provide the services more quickly, efficiently and compassionately than any government... especially faith-based charities... and at a fraction of the cost because they don't feel a need for the elaborate bureaucracy and (best of all) no union.

-Mac


ideally yes i'd agree. But once again, what charity? I know our church offers a "Parents and Tots" learning to play together program, but we don't have resources to offer anything substansive, like help for children at risk of developing ADHD.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
ideally yes i'd agree. But once again, what charity? I know our church offers a "Parents and Tots" learning to play together program, but we don't have resources to offer anything substansive, like help for children at risk of developing ADHD.

Imagine how much better your church could be if you didn't have to give half your salary to governments in taxation? Could you tithe more? I certainly could!

-Mac
hamiltonguyo





Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 250
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5

PostPosted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
hamiltonguyo wrote:
ideally yes i'd agree. But once again, what charity? I know our church offers a "Parents and Tots" learning to play together program, but we don't have resources to offer anything substansive, like help for children at risk of developing ADHD.

Imagine how much better your church could be if you didn't have to give half your salary to governments in taxation? Could you tithe more? I certainly could!

-Mac


I'm not sure a lot of people would. People tend to support all sorts of social programs and are willing to give money for it, yet won't actually give the money unless the government takes it from them. Doesn't really make sense to me.
Blue Meanie





Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Posts: 329
Reputation: 54.7
votes: 3
Location: B.C.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
I'm not sure a lot of people would. People tend to support all sorts of social programs and are willing to give money for it, yet won't actually give the money unless the government takes it from them. Doesn't really make sense to me.

You're absolutely right! Let me explain. These people talk big about supporting all these social programs because it makes them feel good about themselves. But mostly they're just kidding themselves and trying to fool others into thinking what kind, compassionate, and caring individuals they are. But deep down, they aren't and they know it. The proof is in what you already noted, "they won't actually give the money unless the gov't takes it from them". But even then they don't want to pay. They want someone else (preferably the rich) to pay for it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


A Conservative Childcare Policy?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB