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  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 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: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blue Meanie wrote:
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.


I have a bit higher opinion of the average person. It doesn't just make them feel good. They honestly believe that some form of assistance is needed for various groups. Unfortunately to them, actually giving is a pain. How much is needed, who do we give it too, will someone else pay it etc. For better or worse (and I'd argue in many cases it is for worse) Canadians in general endorse parties that promise to maintain social spending, while cutting taxes by finding efficiencies. The solution therefore, involves with the climate we are in now, finding out how to prevent crime, poverty (real not relative), and mental and physical health issues. Any of these cause huge human, societal and monetary damage. And that's why I believe we need a parenting assistance strategy (i suppose childcare isn't necessarily the best description). We must not let Socialists own these issues. We must offer real conservative alternatives, (so far in Canada we only seem to be able to alternative economic and law policies).
Blue Meanie





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hamiltonguyo wrote:
I have a bit higher opinion of the average person.

Maybe. But my words and thoughts were not meant, and should not be construed, as being judgemental of these people. Just saying what I think is the reality. It doesn't make them "evil" or "bad", just probably "normal". To be honest, I'm not much different. If people won't put their money where their mouth is, its a good signal as to how much they really believe in what they're saying.
hamiltonguyo wrote:
....Unfortunately to them, actually giving is a pain. How much is needed, who do we give it too, will someone else pay it etc.

These are just excuses and a cop out by those who don't really believe, or want a "social service" as long as someone else can be made to pay for it.


hamiltonguyo wrote:
For better or worse (and I'd argue in many cases it is for worse) Canadians in general endorse parties that promise to maintain social spending, while cutting taxes by finding efficiencies.

This is basic human nature. Who doesn't want a free lunch? Who doesn't want to have their cake and eat it too!

hamiltonguyo wrote:
The solution therefore, involves with the climate we are in now, finding out how to prevent crime, poverty (real not relative), and mental and physical health issues. Any of these cause huge human, societal and monetary damage. And that's why I believe we need a parenting assistance strategy (i suppose childcare isn't necessarily the best description).

I hear ya! But wow! Prevent crime, poverty and health issues with a 'parenting assistance" strategy? I admire your optimism! Sure, it may play a small part in reducing some of those problems. But there are many other factors at play in those issues beyond inadequate parenting skills. You know that though.


hamiltonguyo wrote:
We must not let Socialists own these issues. We must offer real conservative alternatives, (so far in Canada we only seem to be able to alternative economic and law policies).

I agree we can't let Socialists own these issues. The question is "Can we agree on how to define what "real conservative alternatives" are?" :)
Mac





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

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me play the Devil's advocate for a moment, folks...

For the better part of Canada's history, there were little or no social programs yet somehow Canadians managed to survive and thrive. Let's face it... I doubt anyone will be calling this current generation the "greatest Canadians" unless the category is "whiners".

That "safety net" which you're all willingly embracing is a relatively modern invention. I find it troubling that you're all embracing autocratic government administered solutions, particularly since a good portion of the problem is lays at the feet of government(s).

Basically what you are saying is the nanny state knows better than the individual how to spend our resources. You're buying the notion that it's okay to steal from everyone so long as some good comes from it. You're adopting the notion that all men are too corrupt and selfish to care about the plight of those who are less fortunate than themselves.

Folks, you need to stop being liberals. There are alternatives but you're blind to them.

-Mac
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7435
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I firmly believe that income splitting would allow a parent to stay home with their child and eliminate the need for the government to better spend my tax dollars then me.

However, if that is not an option.
The concept of a tax credit for corporations that set up daycare is interesting, and much more logical then picking a static point establishing a federal daycare and having to have parents come from all over to drop their kids off.
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1140
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eliminate income tax or bring in a flat tax and allow for income splitting. Also, the idea of monthly payouts for young child is good. We need to get our nation's total fertility rate up to replacement somehow.
Cool Blue





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

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The concept of a tax credit for corporations that set up daycare is interesting, and much more logical then picking a static point establishing a federal daycare and having to have parents come from all over to drop their kids off.


We tried that with budget 2006; unfortunately few companies took advantage.

I like the policy that was voted in at the Winnipeg convention: income splitting for those with children under 6.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool Blue wrote:
Quote:
The concept of a tax credit for corporations that set up daycare is interesting, and much more logical then picking a static point establishing a federal daycare and having to have parents come from all over to drop their kids off.


We tried that with budget 2006; unfortunately few companies took advantage.

I like the policy that was voted in at the Winnipeg convention: income splitting for those with children under 6.


I actually voted against that; the original policy was merely for income splitting, with no qualifications. It's a good idea for everyone regardless of the ages of their children, or even if they have children at all.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
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