From today's Kamloops Daily News:Lobby for tax hike, MP tells protesters
MP Betty Hinton told a group of women protesting inadequate child care Thursday that they should pressure the province to raise taxes if they want services improved.
Need we say more? Canada's New Government at its best.
Cited article unattributed
Published May 9, 2007
© Copyright The Daily News in Kamloops
Photo Credit Dave Eagles/Kamloops This Week
Copyright © 2007 Kamloops This Week
15 comments:
After the earlier protest, NL Radio ran a clip where Hinton said "I don't know who those people are."
Of course she didn't. You can't know your constituents if you ignore them.
So who are they?
Tax Hikes are not necessary with both a provincial and federal surplus.
Right, lets just run the debt as it is with millions to interest instead of social programs
I keep hoping the NDP will post something truthful and relevant on this blog, and I had actually given up hope.
But I realized stranger things have happened and I was particularly inspired when I read that a calf in India had been video taped eating chickens.
Why should tax payers foot the bill for daycare.If you cant take care of your kids then dont have them.
Anmy says: Why should tax payers foot the bill for daycare.If you cant take care of your kids then dont have them.
Why should you (or the gov) then impose such laws to determine a womans choice - to choose either to have a child or not, while at the same time impeding the right to inform youth about safe sex and birth control?
The Rhythm method only worked to create voters for the Conservative party in BC (who also attended government funding school systems and use socialized programs) you can't pick and choose when it comes to social needs for the betterment of Canada, because if you can move down south where i am sure you will not find options to aid you when you are in need.
It is not that women/men can not care for their own children, they could if:
A) women got paid as much as men do (see stats Canada for number on how women still make on average less than men at the same job)
B) women had the social acceptance and abilities men do when abandoning children and families (ie. the number of single mothers far out weighs the number of single fathers with custody) and better support networks for fathers that are primary care givers
C) it would be far more productive to go after dead beat dads/mothers than to continue to vilify parents in need
D) government aid does not cover the whole cost of daycare for families, it's a way to allow parents to gain work experience and keep what jobs they have till their own children no longer need the care.
You make this sound as if it is forever, and its not. I would rather have tax dollars helping someone become self providing than creating a total dependent person on the system.
I said, who are they?
Women should be at home raising their own kids.
Who are they? They are her constituents. You must work for her, since you don't get that either.
Obviously, you dont know who they are either...that's like saying they are Canadians or British Columbians...its non-responsive because is so generic its devoid of any useful information.
Thanks for answering my question with a little insult thrown in.
"Why should you (or the gov) then impose such laws to determine a womans choice - to choose either to have a child or not, while at the same time impeding the right to inform youth about safe sex and birth control? "
WHY DO YOU THINK ITS YOUR RIGHT TO SCREW AROUND.?? WHY SHOULD AN INOCENT LIFE BE SACRIFICED BECAUSE THE MOM IS A SLUT.IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS KEEP YOUR LEGS SHUT.
KIDS WHO ARE GIVEN CONDOMS USE THEM,THATS A FACT.WHEN ABSTINENCE WAS TAUGHT THE TEEN PREGNANCY RATE WAS SO LOW IT WASNT MEASURABLE.HANDING KIDS CONDOMS IS GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO USE THEM.
Ok, now that is just the biggest load of garbage I have ever seen.
Let's just get to the obvious weakness and show of ignorance in your argument - the idea that women, if they don't want children should keep their legs shut...sluts...etc. Basic biology says that until we have the genetic engineering in place to make men irrelevant (at which time women won't have to worry about being labelled anything, because we won't need you) that it takes an egg AND a SPERM to create a child. So logic dictates that there are also a significant number of male sluts out there creating unplanned children, and the only material difference between the female "sluts" and the male "sluts" is that the males then run away from their responsibilities and leave the female "sluts" to cope with raising the unplanned child. Fortunately, we now have high tech. tools such as condoms that help female AND male "sluts" not to produce unwanted children, since we know that those individuals are not likely to give up sexual activity anytime soon.
Now your foolish economic claims that mothers should stay at home to raise their children - as a reason for governments not to provide funding to child care.
Since our male sluts have abandoned these childen, (keeping in mind that many of these female "sluts" were actually married when the children were produced and then divorced taking an average 30% cut in lifestyle while their partners take about a 17% increase in lifestyle), and now the female "sluts" have to raise the children themselves. Since most workplaces frown upon women toting their children to work and taking frequent breaks for potty, diaper changing, breast feeding and other various childrens' complaints, those women now require child care. These are the same women that while married were probably encouraged by their own desires to raise their children properly and their husbands' agreement on the matter, and have therefore given up their careers. These women are lucky to get a job making, say $11 per hour. At $11 per hour, a woman will take home about $1200 to $1300 per month. In order to provide an adequate home for a child, she will be lucky to find a place to live for, say $700 per month, leaving her with about $500-$600 per month for food, utilities, travel expenses, clothing, etc.
Oh, but wait, then there is daycare. On average, in Kamloops, if you have daycare full time for a child of 3-5 years, and if you can find a spot at all (waiting lists are about 600 people right now), you will be paying just under $500 per month - leaving you with about $100 per month to feed and clothe yourself and your child, as well as pay for heat, etc.
If you can tell me how to feed and clothe an adult and child (plus pay utilities) for $100-$200 per month, please do. In the meantime, please realize that growing up in poverty increases a child's chances of becoming a criminal by 70% - which is fine, because Hinton's Conservatives have increased funding to policing. So, I'm thinking perhaps their policies are a make-work program. They're cutting funds to poor families, but increasing funds so that there will be lots more police to lock up these individuals and lots more prisons to put them in. They're also making tougher laws, which will help them to put away all of the criminals their thier policies have generated.
In the end, it is the most economically viable for our female "sluts" to keep opening up their legs, have one or two more unplanned children, which will increase their welfare rates, and live off of social assistance. In this way they can be home to raise their children, and won't have to feed them for $100 per month. The net bill to the government, after cutting the $500 they were paying for that mother to put her child in daycare, and instead moving her over to about $800+ in social assistance, plus increasing the amount of money to dealing with the criminals that they have generated by increasing child povery will be a loss - but I take comfort in the idea that small-minded individuals such as yourself will have your high-and mighty (though misguided and simplistic) values gratified.
Conservative economics at their best. Excellent work Mr. Harper and Ms. Hinton.
Can't people state their positions and arguements without resorting to stereotypical archtypes? An example of this is the sociopathic, parasitic, spawning single mother who has the unfortunate habit of renting out her uterus to the highest bidder. I challenge anyone to provide proof that the majority of women who utilize subsidized daycare to be such a person. It is no different that for me (someone from the Lower Mainland) to state that most people living in Kamloops are rednecks devoid of culture. Such vitriol serves no purpose other than to distance people from one another.
These women are your neighbours. Rather than pointing fingers, making accusations and other such childish behaviours, perhaps offering to babysit is a solution (since you don't want your tax dollars going to the daycare program)?
Post a Comment