"National Childcare is Liberal's top priority"
Who said it? Well first it was Chretien (1993). Then it was Chretien again (1997). Then, well, it was Chretien one last time (2000). Then next time it was Martin (2004). Then Martin again, with the help of Scott "Beer and Popcorn" Reid (2005). Then of course, last time around, it was Dion (2008).
Are you sensing a theme here?
Now, it's Iggy's turn to take the pledge. Not necessarily to deliver, mind you, but to at least say the words.
You'd think the left would get it by now. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
So what about "Fool me six times, and... well, I guess I'll vote for you again anyways"?
Are you sensing a theme here?
Now, it's Iggy's turn to take the pledge. Not necessarily to deliver, mind you, but to at least say the words.
You'd think the left would get it by now. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
So what about "Fool me six times, and... well, I guess I'll vote for you again anyways"?
Labels: childcare, Chretien, Humour, Liberals, loony lefties
posted by Christian Conservative @ 8:40 a.m.
3 Comments:
At Tue Feb 02, 12:29:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Here's the main problem here. We spend all this time rehatching old quotes and tearing each other down on whether they promised child care or not, when the real issue is the lack of quality child care in this country. The 1200 bucks may be well and good for middle class couples with newborns, but it means jack to those single mothers who are going to need more than 1200 to take care of their child/children while they work 12 hours a day waiting tables at the local diner.
Why don't you actually outline what the Conservative child care position is, and why do you think it is the most acceptable plan, instead of tearing down the other guys for a change?
At Tue Feb 02, 01:33:00 p.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
Sure thing.
My issue is that it seems that every single Liberal policy regarding "Child Care" seems to revolve solely around the needs of the "single mother". What about the needs of the family? Why can't the Liberals just put forward an idea for the non-single mothers who WANT to stay home with their kids? Why does Liberal policy have to revolve around an institutionalized system, where most of the money goes to overhead, lobbyists and administration?
What's wrong with offering incentives to couples who want to have one parent stay home and raise the kids? That means that there will be more jobs opened up for all those single mothers, allowing them to be able to afford things like child care. Finding ways to help companies start their own private daycare for staff should be looked into.
However, whenever that sort of idea is suggested, the left typically attacks it, as their only solution is government funded and unionized institutional programs. Let's put ALL the options on the table, rather than just one single left-wing vision.
Okay, my thoughts... help couples make the decision to have one parent stay at home. Income splitting might accomplish that. That will open up more jobs for single women as more married mothers opt to stay at home. Then offer significant tax relief to businesses and/or building owners to offer programs on site to their tenants/employees.
Also look at offering funding to private, home run daycare. And I mean regulated ones, not just any mom who decides to run one with 20+ kids out of their home. There are plenty of companies/organizations that have effective setups, my elementary principal's wife ran such a one from her home. Can you imagine the benefits for a married mother who wants to stay at home with their kids if she had the option of opening up two or three more spots in her home for friends, some of them single moms, who choose to work? Allow parents to determine where the funding for their child goes, don't require a bloated government run system that will be in the pocket of the unions.
THAT'S the ONLY way we're going to get a system that has a chance of WORKING.
At Tue Feb 02, 11:39:00 p.m. EST,
Unknown said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home