The Liberal Plan for a National Daycare Financial Disaster
Today the Federal Liberals announced that they're going to add another $6 Billion to the $5 Billion they've already allocated for a disastrous, completely unfair national daycare plan.
$6 Billion?!? Excuse me?!? I guess money must grow on trees in the fantasyland that Liberal politicians have created in their own minds.
But even worse is the fundamental unfairness of the plan in the first place! It's modelled after the subsidized daycare system in Quebec. There is absolutely no means test. That means that the wealthiest parents in our society will have their daycare subsidized by childless people, no matter how poor. Just envision a rich woman in her $90,000 BMW dropping off her children at daycare and then driving off to have drinks and a fabulous lunch with her equally adorned girlfriends. As she approaches the restaurant, her car passes through a large puddle that splashes all the poor people waiting for a bus. The great irony is that these cold, shivering public transit passengers will be paying for HER children to go to daycare!
And under the Liberal plan, those parents who choose not to have strangers raise their children get absolutely NOTHING from the government.
The Conservative party, on the other hand, have advocated a system that would give parents a $1200 per child benefit, to use any way they choose. While I don't agree that there is no means test with this plan either, at least it's a start in a much more sensible direction.
The Liberal National Daycare Plan is so clearly the wrong path for Canada.
15 comments:
"$6 Billion?!? Excuse me?!? I guess money must grow on trees in the fantasyland that Liberal politicians have created in their own minds."
Doesn't the Conservative plan call for $10.9 billion? How is this any more or less fantastic that the amount proposed by the liberals?
"But even worse is the fundamental unfairness of the plan in the first place! It's modeled after the subsidized daycare system in Quebec. There is absolutely no means test."
I would be interested for your thoughts on why it isn't a means test - moreover why it isn't fair. Quebec has a model based on one used in Nordic countries - with incredibly success (google it). It supports parental employment and equity amongst parents, and social solidarity and lifelong learning amongst Children. I believe the issue you blur over is that fact that if someone can actually make the choice to stay at home with their children (if they're so lucky) they're SAVING the $7-$10 a day (currently around $20) per day that two-income families have to pay.
It's peculiar to hear conservatives complain about unfairness when there's the unusual circumstance that a social program that may actually give lower income people a leg up. Socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest, eh?
"That means that the wealthiest parents in our society will have their daycare subsidized by childless people, no matter how poor. Just envision a rich woman in her $90,000 BMW dropping off her children at daycare and then driving off to have drinks and a fabulous lunch with her equally adorned girlfriends. As she approaches the restaurant, her car passes through a large puddle that splashes all the poor people waiting for a bus. The great irony is that these cold, shivering public transit passengers will be paying for HER children to go to daycare!"
You reference a woman in a $90,000 BMW. Could she not have four children, get $4800 a year because of that - and still splash people at the bus stop? You're analogy seems based more emotion than logic - or am I missing something?
"And under the Liberal plan, those parents who choose not to have strangers raise their children get absolutely NOTHING from the government."
I'm not sure if you have children, or are married - but the reality is that a large percentage of Canadians need two-income families. Day care is a necessity, not necessarily a choice. Furthermore, I haven't met many parents that haven't thoroughly researched and interviewed the care givers for their children. Day care owners will tell you they get almost all of their enrollment based on referrals from friends and family of parents. If you're lucky enough to be able to CHOOSE to stay at home and raise a child - you're far better off than a good deal of parents.
"The Conservative party, on the other hand, have advocated a system that would give parents a $1200 per child benefit, to use any way they choose. While I don't agree that there is no means test with this plan either, at least it's a start in a much more sensible direction."
Why is it sensible? Although the plan is vague - does this mean that a two-parent family with an income of $200,000 per year, that already had a stay-at-home mom would receive $4800 if she had 4 kids under the age of 6? Does this seem fair to you? Do you not think that there are more people that truly need daycare that could benefit from this windfall?
"The Liberal National Daycare Plan is so clearly the wrong path for Canada."
Your argument seems somewhat contradictory to me. Although the harsh reality for many parents is that they both need to work to support the family, at least there is more productivity, more wage earners and greater economic activity. One would think that an economic conservative would understand this - while a social conservative would tend to prefer women stay in the home.
Brian Mulroney:
"Canada shall, under a Progressive Conservative government, have an effective national system of child care."
Brian Mulroney:
"The Government of Canada, even in difficult circumstances, will find the resources necessary to do our share in making a child care program a national reality."
The Economist, Special Section, July 18, 1998. A survey of women and work, pg.16"
"It is perfectly possible to devise a system that will produce more children and still keep women at work, though it may not come cheap. The principle of free education for school-age children is already entrenched throughout the rich world; there would be nothing incongruous about extending it further down the age range. [The] Nordic countries [provide] widely available and good-quality child care together with generous maternity and parental leave arrangements....... "
The last thing I would mention about the tax cut the conservative's have proposed, and what social conservatives have endorsed - is the assumption that all parents (or even most) would do "the right thing" with the money. The economic pressure a good deal of low to middle class Canadians live with certainly creates the likelihood that this money would simply disappear into the ether of monthly day-to-days. After all, we're talking about $50 per pay check.
We're not fans of the liberals in our household these days, but we're certainly not about the vote for a party that will take us back to the 1950's either. Socially, we believe, they are completely out of touch with the majority of Canadians today. Canada is a progressive, multicultural democracy, not a regressive, homogenous republic. If someone desires a country like that, they have only a short drive to the south!
I was just browsing blogger tonight.... we have a blog with them. You have some really nice pictures. You're political posts seem to suggest that your ideologies are considerably more socially focused than economic. You also seem fairly angry. Hopefully things work out the way you want them to. Cheers!
Dear Two Knaves,
If you're the person from Winnipeg I fear you are (initials "SS"), then I'll end this tete-a-tete immediately but until I know that for certain, I'll continue what I hope will be a reasonable conversation.
You've drawn all kinds of conclusions about what I've said that are completely the opposite of what I meant. So for your benefit, let me spell things out more clearly:
I have no problem with the government helping out those families who truly in need of financial aid to raise their children.
But there is no sense in taxpayer dollars going to wealthier families who don't need such help. Rather than paying them, give more money to those who can't afford it. Thus, there definitely should be a means test; I believe the amount of help offered to families should be on a reverse sliding scales - with those who need it the most getting the most.
It seems that you're a big fan of big government but a growing number of Canadians are not. I will excuse your blanket insult about the lack of intelligence and low responsibility quotient of poorer people. That's just rude.
The FAIREST way is to give those parents who require it the funds to spend as they see fit. If they want to send their kids to daycare then great, I support them. If they want for one parent to stay at home then great, I support them. If they want a friend or relative to come in to take care of the kids and pay them then great, I support them.
Finally, nowhere have I ever (in my life) said, written, or even thought that women should preferably stay home rather than go out into the workforce. Your blanket inference that everyone who might fall under the "conservative" banner thinks exactly the same way is the same ignorance that fuels racism. Not cool.
If you're the person from Winnipeg I fear you are (initials "SS"), then I'll end this tete-a-tete immediately but until I know that for certain, I'll continue what I hope will be a reasonable conversation.
Huh? I realize you're from Vancouver, but please understand there is more than a handful of people east of Calgary and west of Toronto ; )
You've drawn all kinds of conclusions about what I've said that are completely the opposite of what I meant. So for your benefit, let me spell things out more clearly:
I have no problem with the government helping out those families who truly in need of financial aid to raise their children.
But there is no sense in taxpayer dollars going to wealthier families who don't need such help. Rather than paying them, give more money to those who can't afford it. Thus, there definitely should be a means test; I believe the amount of help offered to families should be on a reverse sliding scales - with those who need it the most getting the most.
Agreed - and the Quebec flaw is that all families can take advantage of it - and wealthy families certainly are - helping to create longer wait lines. The Liberal plan ADDRESSES this, and advocates a sliding scale.
But how does the Conservative plan address it? You'll (hopefully) answer that... see further below.
It seems that you're a big fan of big government but a growing number of Canadians are not. I will excuse your blanket insult about the lack of intelligence and low responsibility quotient of poorer people. That's just rude.
You're dodging the point, and casting false and derogatory statements at the same time. I made NO inference to lack of intelligence or LOW responsibility - it's a reality.
Fortunately for you - it seems to be one you're not familiar with. Do you seriously believe that a $1200 tax cut simply wouldn't evaporate in day to day life? You're an intelligent person, and I know you don't believe that. If you do, I would suggest you do some research as to the amount of debt the average Canadian is carrying - or what their net worth is.
I'll let you decide if what appears to be incredibly poor money-management skills on paper is the result of economic realities in today's world or just lazy thinking.
Regardless, it suggests that allocating funds that are lumped into net income as opposed to subsidies available to assist in key areas such as daycare (particularly when they're limited) is hardly ideal. Ask some parents what they do with their child tax credit.
More than anything, your reply is a sloppy rebuttal... at best. And for the record - that group of people I refer to includes my family!
The FAIREST way is to give those parents who require it the funds to spend as they see fit. If they want to send their kids to daycare then great, I support them. If they want for one parent to stay at home then great, I support them. If they want a friend or relative to come in to take care of the kids and pay them then great, I support them.
Finally, nowhere have I ever (in my life) said, written, or even thought that women should preferably stay home rather than go out into the workforce. Your blanket inference that everyone who might fall under the "conservative" banner thinks exactly the same way is the same ignorance that fuels racism. Not cool.
Subsidized daycare is the single most important on-ramp for getting women into the workforce - and taking a prominent (not backseat) role in our economy. I said social conservative - and in that case - it's pretty fair. I made this distinction based on another post in which you labeled yourself an "economic" conservative.
For greater clairity, I am suggesting that you're an economic conservative by virtue of the fact that you're really a socially conservative at your core. And social conservatives don't shy away from their belief that a woman's place is in the home. Harper's opinion on women's role in society:
“Women are still the primary caregivers for infants in our society, of their own volition. Most of them put this critically important duty ahead of working outside the home. That is why the earnings of married women are lower, on average, than the earnings of married men. This difference is not due to a male conspiracy nor to systemic discrimination."
Finally, and most importantly if we are to have dialogue that is BACK and forth, I would be appreciative of your answers to the questions I posed to you in my first post. Namely,
The Conservative plan calls for $10.9 billion. How is this any more or less fantastic that the amount proposed by the liberals?
You reference a woman in a $90,000 BMW. Could she not have four children, get $4800 a year because of that - and still splash people at the bus stop? Your analogy seems based on emotion rather than logic - or am I missing something? To clarify, how does an across-the-board tax cut by the Conservatives alleviate the tax burden from all Canadians? It's still a publicly funded initiative!
Why is it sensible? Although the plan is vague - does this mean that a two-parent family with an income of $200,000 per year, that already had a stay-at-home mom would receive $4800 if she had 4 kids under the age of 6? Does this seem fair to you? Do you not think that there are more people that truly need daycare that could benefit from this windfall? Add: Your statement in your initial post "there is no sense in taxpayer dollars going to wealthier families who don't need such help. Rather than paying them, give more money to those who can't afford it" - completely contradicts you're support of this Conservative tax cut, does it not?
I look forward to your reply, cheers!
I simply do not agree with your "big government knows best" political views. I respect that you have every right to have them but I'm convinced our poltical system is in the trouble it is (and citizens are as disgusted as they are) because we've collectively trusted big government for too long ... and been disappointed on so many fronts. While I do agree with you that some people are irresponsible with money, letting the government control it is much worse. They waste our money like a thirsty dog slurps water out of a bowl: There's never enough and they really don't care where it goes!
Incidentally, check back in a week or so when I post a humourous piece about the difference between a child's birthday party being run by regular parents and the federal Liberal government.
People need to take more responsibility for themselves. Period. And if they don't then they have to face the consequences. Maybe that sounds harsh but the alternative is to let the government manage every aspect of our lives. Sorry, but communism doesn't work and devout socialism isn't much better.
I would like to see proof of what you're saying about a sliding scale as part of the Liberal plan. What you're saying completely flies in the face of Sharon Gregson of
http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca She is the de facto B.C. spokesperson for the Liberal Childcare Plan; and has been since its inception. I asked her this very question a year ago and she said that everyone is entitled to the same amount "because they pay their taxes". This very monring she was on with Peter Warren on www.cknw.com and repeated this again. You can listen to the Audio Archives (between 9-10am if you don't believe me).
As for the Conservative plan, I do not support it wholeheartedly, but it is better than the Liberal plan because of the reasons I've cited before and because it doesn't create yet another federal bureaucracy that will do everything but help the people who really need it. That's what bureaucracies do: waste precious tax dollars.
Just wait until one day when the Indian Affairs accounts are open for audit by Sheila Fraser or her successor. I bet you that way less than 30 cents of every dollar will be found to actually go to the natives ... you know, the ones who need the money!
As for the $10.9 Billion allocated by the Conservatives, as I've said before, I don't have a problem helping out those families that need it.
Simple math tells us that $10.9 Billion divided by $1,200 equal 9,083,333 children. I doubt that this many children require financial assistance but without a means test this is what it works out to.
With that said, giving people a $1,200 tax cut is by far better than spending $1,200 on a federal bureaucracy for the reasons I've cited earlier. And providing tax cuts have the added benefit of helping out the economy more, especially in overly taxed Canada.
Your 2nd to last question I've already addressed. And your last question I don't understand whatsoever.
The fundemental premise of the Liberal plan is that goverment knows best. They want to establish yet another massive bureacracy to "do what's best" for the people. Top-down, state planning. The alternative is to empower parents and let them decide what's best and most appropriate for their family. Bottom-up. Choice.
What exactly is "social solidarity"? I know I've seen it at union rallies but always wondered.
MW
I simply do not agree with your "big government knows best" political views. I respect that you have every right to have them but I'm convinced our political system is in the trouble it is (and citizens are as disgusted as they are) because we've collectively trusted big government for too long ... and been disappointed on so many fronts. While I do agree with you that some people are irresponsible with money, letting the government control it is much worse. They waste our money like a thirsty dog slurps water out of a bowl: There's never enough and they really don't care where it goes!
I equally appreciate your right to hold your views. But your paragraph fails to really answer or address anything specifically. It's conjecture mostly and rhetoric - which only fuels anger and misunderstanding.
Why are you convinced our political "system" is in trouble?
We have one of the most prosperous nations on earth. If you're referring to quasi neocolonial rule(or more fairly, a sense of single party choice) - I would tent to agree - but only to the extent that we don't have an alternative. If the Conservative value system fits with your values, that's great - but they simply don't for the majority of Canadians. That's not going to change, in fact it continues to move further away. That's progression.
The NDP have some stellar people, but I don't believe they are ready to govern, and they have a fringe that is way too tight with socialism for the the majority of Canadians comfort.
The liberals have been in power 12 years. There have been scandals, broken promises and pork barreling. While this is nothing new to any elected government - what is very telling is that the "2nd choice" still can't even come close in the polls. This is simply astonishing - that a party in power this long and with enough messes to anger even the most die-hard liberal party supporter - yet there is no party that can convince the Canadians that there is a better alternative. That, I find disgusting. What's hilarious about all of this is that if the PC's had remained autonomous - they would likely be forming government. Unite the right indeed.
People need to take more responsibility for themselves. Period. And if they don't then they have to face the consequences. Maybe that sounds harsh but the alternative is to let the government manage every aspect of our lives. Sorry, but communism doesn't work and devout socialism isn't much better.
I don't disagree, fundamentally. However responsibility is applicable within that which people can control. To try and apply this statement to our conversation about daycare is asinine. Two income families are a reality. They're a reality - in part - by unchecked free enterprise. People who have a family income of $45k - fairly close to the national average are struggling if they have a mortgage, a car, property taxes, utilities, fuel and insurance. People with LOWER income than that - and there are lots of them - have it worse yet. Really Robert you would either have to live like this or be intimate with people who are - and have children - to understand what this means. These aren't all loafers or people who take "responsibility". These are people who get up every morning and work hard. They pay taxes and contribute to society. Add to this trying to juggle kids and a family life. Daycare is a necessity, and quality subsidized daycare is what's needed - not a tax break. Do you know that unsubsidized day care can cost up to $50 per day? Here in Manitoba, our partially subsidized day care is $20 per day. PER DAY. That's $400 a month. How far do you think a $1200 tax credit is going to go? Nope, putting $1200 in the tax exempt income line on a T4 isn't going to do it. More importantly, and to the point, however, "responsibility" has NOTHING to do with it.
I won't address your comments on socialism and communism. It's interesting how quickly these labels come out as a warning by Conservatives or libertarians whenever anything besides objectivist laissez faire capitalism is considered. Communism, as it has been implemented in the past, is truly the religion that has failed. China's economy should have us looking over your shoulder, however. Equally dead is the religion of unbridled market forces - witness the United States. (let's not debate that though - that's a rabbit hole or centre-of-the-earth depths). Responsible, sensible democratic government with a social safety net. Or in the case of subsidized day care - a way to get people out, working, contributing and growing - thus lessening the NEED for said net in the first place. No government will ever be perfect, the liberals perhaps exemplify this ;) - but, it's this kind of small c government that will continue to reap prosperous, tolerant, and equitable rewards here and abroad.
Ultimately - and I am not directing this at you - when people release their grips on the antiquated and often misunderstood literalist translation of Christian principle (that creates so much intolerance, bigotry and social regression and greed instead of the wonderful messages the myths try and tell) they'll realize that the decency inherent of most human beings along with accountable democracy will yield a far better society. And that is where Canada is heading.
I would like to see proof of what you're saying about a sliding scale as part of the Liberal plan. What you're saying completely flies in the face of Sharon Gregson of
http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca She is the de facto B.C. spokesperson for the Liberal Childcare Plan; and has been since its inception. I asked her this very question a year ago and she said that everyone is entitled to the same amount "because they pay their taxes". This very monring she was on with Peter Warren on www.cknw.com and repeated this again. You can listen to the Audio Archives (between 9-10am if you don't believe me).
If I supply you with this proof - will you consider stating for the record (here) that you would support a plan like it - and that it makes more sense that a campaign trail tax cut?
As for the $10.9 Billion allocated by the Conservatives, as I've said before, I don't have a problem helping out those families that need it.
The point here is simply that at the beginning of your post you wondered where the additional $6 billion was coming from - liberal fantasyland or something like that. It's ironic, don't you think, that $10 billion pledged by liberals is obscene and unrealistic, but a $10 billion tax cut from the Conservatives is "on the right path".
Simple math tells us that $10.9 Billion divided by $1,200 equal 9,083,333 children. I doubt that this many children require financial assistance but without a means test this is what it works out to.
Perhaps, except under the Conservative plan EVERYONE with a child get a credit. This is ridiculous - not only because it won't help the people that truly need it as much as accessible, affordable day care, but that wealthy people will receive it to. Talk about waste!
Your 2nd to last question I've already addressed. And your last question I don't understand whatsoever.
Here's your original comment:
"The Conservative party, on the other hand, have advocated a system that would give parents a $1200 per child benefit, to use any way they choose..... at least it's a start in a much more sensible direction."
To which I replied with a question:
Why is it sensible? Although the plan is vague - does this mean that a two-parent family with an income of $200,000 per year, that already had a stay-at-home mom would receive $4800 if she had 4 kids under the age of 6? Does this seem fair to you? Do you not think that there are more people that truly need daycare that could benefit from this windfall?
You didn't answer, but in your subsequent reply to my comment you added:
"there is no sense in taxpayer dollars going to wealthier families who don't need such help. Rather than paying them, give more money to those who can't afford it"
Surely you see how your argument contradicts itself? You acknowledge that the Conservative plan is a tax cut for every family with a child (under 6) but in another reply you claim that the wealthier families don't need the help, it should go to those that need it. So which is it? This type of contradiction gives the sense that you are so embittered by the liberals (or perhaps what a fiscally conservative and socially progressive agenda) stands for that you're going to blindly support whatever plank the Conservatives tout.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, although you made no comment on Harper's position on Women, or social conservatism.
Cheers
Dear Scott S.,
This is so clearly you ... albeit a much better behaved you, which is a remarkable improvement. I just skimmed over your last response. I see that you never bothered answering my questions, even though I offered you such respect and answered all of yours.
Anyhow, this is pointless. We could go on arguing this for years - much like the House of Commons - and nothing would ever get accomplished. If others want to argue with you, then so be it.
Just remain polite please - you, me, and everyone!
Thanks ... and Merry Christmas!
Robert
Robert, you didn't ask a question - not one! Please reread your comment that I replied to. I am sorry - but I cannot answer a question that has not been asked.
You made a "request" - although I assumed it was rhetorical, I responded anyway.
You requested: I would like to see proof of what you're saying about a sliding scale as part of the Liberal plan.
I answered like this: If I supply you with this proof - will you consider stating for the record (here) that you would support a plan like it - and that it makes more sense that a campaign trail tax cut?
That offer still stands.
Your comment regarding the House Of Commons is simply astounding! Debate, discussion and choice are the very, VERY cornerstones of our democracy. Would you suggest, instead, imperial rule? I don't believe you mean this, rather you have tried to end dialogue on a position you appear unable to defend.
And it's fine to have a position you find you may not be able to defend. I certainly don't have all the answers either (who does after all!) But I'll concede to another point of view - or reasonable thesis when it contradicts a belief I hold. I encourage you to at least try and do the same!
No person can call themselves reasonable if they are unable to see and admit their errors.
You have failed to make an acknowledgment that personal responsibility (or lack thereof)has nothing to do with the need for daycare vs. a tax cut.
You have failed to answer why a tax cut to all Canadians addresses your stated belief that a child care plan should only go to the those that truly.
Finally, and this ties in directly with the above, you have failed to provide any indication that your entire thesis is not contradictory.
Thanks!
Balagan,
It's terrific that you believe it's the pot calling the kettle black - but you have interjected into a conversation I was already having with Robert.
I have not yet had chance to respond to your post . You have some thoughts that are certainly worth exploring. I am trying to carry on one conversation at a time, finding some time during lunch break to respond to Robert.
That said, Harper has makes broad assumptions in this snippet - namely that woman are primary care givers by choice. With parental leave now at a year - this is hardly the case. The truth is that men are still the primary (or at least the majority) source of family income. This reality dictates who stays home for how long during the early years. Pay inequity has existed since the progressive movement finally gave woman a chance to even work outside the home - there are simply too many studies that confirm this. Harper wants to put the chicken before the egg - and it's just semantics that thinly veil a regressive social position concerning women (that interpretive, but it's also the way the MAJORITY interpret it.) For goodness sake, they don't even attempt to hide that fact... why would you?
More later!
It's interesting that while you find the time to respond to a point-by-point breakdown of Harper's quote (that can be construed on many levels and is ultimately open to interpretation) - you won't address any of the points I argue against a tax break for all as opposed to sensible, affordable, accessible child care.
I must surmise you don't have any real defense of the Conservative "child care" plan either.
Finally, Robert had asked us to be polite. Please try and respect that.
Thanks
Such semantics.
The quote by Harper does not pigeon hole him as one who advocates the "woman's place is on the home" based solely on the information within it - with no context around it - sure. It was an example of Harper's attitude in more of a generality towards women - one of (many) times he's been foolish enough to let the moderate facade slip.
Does this quote prove Harper would rather women be barefoot? No. Does the fact that he's a member of the evangelical Alliance Church (perhaps you'll take some time to become familiar with the Alliance's "scripturally grounded" values), is against abortion and has the audacity to suggest that all Women always choose to stay at home to raise their children help establish that he's a social conservative - a mostly fundementalist-Christian bunch who's ideology generally include a 19th century attitude towards women on most topics? Certainly.
The majority or Canadian's, and certainly those even more progressive than the majority will consider the term conservative in a opprobrious sense when referencing social values. Social conservatives, however, don't consider it a derogatory reference. Either you're not aware of this - or you wish it wasn't so. It is of no concern to me which - the only thing that matters is that it's a fact.
Of course you only attempt to detract from the topic at hand.
If you want to toss your comments into the topic of the tax cut/ daycare, have at it - but if your contribution to date serves as any indication, it will amount to a lot of feathers and not much chicken.
It seems to me that the best day care plan would be to have half a dozen or so welfare mothers get together and babysit the children of the mothers who go to outside jobs. You could use public funds to monitor the sites, and even pay assistance for the "outside job" mothers who can't afford the babysitting fee.
This would take care of the situation nicely, and even employ a half a dozen or so welfare mothers who presently can't leave very young babies or have some other problem with general employment, who would man the day care, for every, say, 30-50 children they care for.
And it also wouldn't neccessarily require any draconic legislation... just a funding measure for the monitoring and assistance. The baby sitting services themselves would be private businesses owned by the women, and not government operated day care centers. They just need to circulate the idea, and the mothers would probably take care of matters themselves.
You could focus on the topic - or distract.
You can't respond - or debate the issues regarding the tax cut vs. day care - so you hide in an arrogant facade while pointing fingers instead.
I was hoping to engage some (who I believe) wrong-headed but otherwise intelligent people into dissecting the origins of their regressive conservatism - or really - libertarianism. But as many find - it simply isn't possible. You're never wrong - you're always smarter - you're always better - black and white.
The degree to which you dismiss or yell is in direct proportion to the severity of your inability to consider critical analysis of anything that challenges your value system.
Thank God from all of us our nation will never revert to the direction you wish it would.
I imagine that's where the anger that I originally saw in Robert comes from.
Get your last word in now...
Dear Scott Sime (aka "Two Knaves"),
I warned you to be polite. I'm no longer involved in the discussion and yet you're once again taking personal attacks at me.
You're an unwanted guest, the kind of person who shows up at a function, rambles on & on, and just never leaves.
I've asked you to be polite but this seems an impossible task for you. You're one step away from getting banned on my site, like I had to do before.
Sincerely,
Robert
Wow - ok. Let me see what I have learned from this discussion:
Women who want to stay home with their babies (and research shows most WANT to) are archaic drones for a pre-industrial, biblically literal, theocratic state.
A child-care bureaucracy (similar to say, our oh-so-effective Quebec system with huge wait lists) is preferable to families making their own choices.
And, finally, anyone who believes in God should be excluded from the public square. Especially if they are Protestant.
Lovely stuff!
Erin - listen to your father.
Post a Comment