Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

UPDATED: Lib MP Bennett to stay-at-home moms: "Get a REAL job"

Thanks to reader "Bert", we now have the link to the full story, with the quote in context.
Ms. Guergis' status as one of the few women in high positions in the Harper government and her gender provoked no sympathy from Liberal women in the Commons whose job it is to shadow her actions in Cabinet and her performance in the job.

Ms. Guergis has established three "pillars" as the foundation for her plans to help women—increasing women's security and prosperity, ending violence against women, and enhancing women's leadership and democratic participation—and her record of 75 speeches and appearances since October 2008 suggests she has taken the role seriously. But the opposition says she is focusing on the symptoms of the issues women face, rather than root cause.

"You can have lists as long as your arm," said Ms. Bennett. "Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care; that is the key to their economic independence, to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work."
And what of those women who WANT to stay at home, my dear Ms. Bennett? Who view the task of raising their OWN children to be well adjusted members of society AS their primary "JOB"?

Once again, this quote reveals the contrasts in how Liberals and Conservatives view issues here in Canada. You see, the Liberals typically believe that Canadians NEED the Government to step in with a "One Size Fits All" solution, which typically involves a TON of money and yet another huge bureaucracy, in order to deal with a problem. That is a "STATIST" mindset, one which I firmly REJECT.

Instead, we Conservatives typically believe that Canadians are for the most part capable in solving their own problems, so we instead try to give Canadians the tools they need to make these decisions FOR THEMSELVES.

Of course, there will be those who need additional help, so we should do what we can to help them. But by giving most Canadians the tools they need to help themselves, such as the Universal Child Benefit which helps the MAJORITY of Canadian families, we can then better focus our resources to helping the much smaller number of people who need more help, which will make better use of our resources and stretch our tax dollars that much further.

Ms. Bennett's comments only help to remind Canadians of this difference in VISION between our two parties. Conservatives want to help YOU make your own choices. Liberals want to TELL YOU HOW IT'S GOING TO BE, with even more Government intervention into society, and a massive Government agency that will employ thousands of their supporters, lobbyists, and friends.

UPDATE: The MSM is finally starting to pick up on it.

Labels: ,


  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 10:43:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    First she demands vasectomies and tubal ligations for third world countries then she devalues the work that Women a(and men) do for their families. What a piece of work.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 10:56:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger ridenrain said…

    Good find.
    I eagerly await the resounding chorus of "righteous indignation" from the media.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 11:00:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger said…

    Wow, the arrogance of progressives is universal. Most progressive politicians in the U.S. wouldn't say something like that. Nonetheless they believe that.

    My wife is a stay at home mom. She works her tail off and I always honor her work. I would love this woman to try being a stay at home mom for a week and then not call it a "real job."

    If progressives are pro choice why then do they bash the empowered mother who wants to stay at home raising her family?

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 11:08:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I was a stay at home mom. my children are both grown now.
    my jobs included.
    personal shopper,money manager,banker, cook,police,social worker,entertainer,gardener. and a few others thrown in once in a while.
    I wasn't a chauffeur but I did get my children to and from activities.
    I would like anyone to say they would be able to pay a stay at home mom the money she deserves.
    I would really like them to give us the respect we deserve.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 11:24:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger said…

    I would have to google it to verify, but I remember reading an article that if a stay at home mom was paid for all her work she'd make about 117,000 dollars a year.

    A working mom....who is now less valuable....has to contract some of her service out...however she'd make about 67,000 a year for the work she does at home.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 11:42:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger wilson said…

    This is pretty much the standard Liberal 'think' on babies, isn't it.

    my take on Liberal think:
    Ditch it...or ditch it on someone else, because life is really all about you

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 11:46:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger maryT said…

    Maybe if more moms stayed home to raise their kids, one would not have to worry about being shot while out shopping. Or having your child killed by some party crasher.
    Does this Bennett have kids. What kind of practice does she have, does she have female patients. Does she have stay at home moms as patients.
    If she does, they now know what she thinks of them.
    OT but Anne Coulter is on PP today with Tom Clark. Should be good.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 01:07:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Anonymous: Comment rejected, please try again.



  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 02:04:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Seems to me it was the Conservatives who've been spending like drunken sailors.

    Sadly, with nothing to show for it.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 02:22:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Anon, it's Politics 101... it's a minority government. You want spending to change? Make sure you do your part to get a majority.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 03:44:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    a massive Government agency that will employ thousands of their supporters, lobbyists, and friends.

    You mean, like this?

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 04:19:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Nope, but it is certainly a nice, but WAY off topic, try there Liberal Anonymous @ 3:44pm.

    But since you brought it up, you know what's really sad? You, trying to make political hay with the deaths of thousands of Hatians, and seeking to slow down the earthquake relief for political gain. You know how long a Government tender process takes? In this case, this ONE case, I think it makes perfect sense... give the contract to people you know AND TRUST to spend the money wisely... instead of letting it go to a Liberal-linked firm, where part of the money will end up back in your own Party coffers.

    Hey, you're the one that went off topic... it's not my fault that you brought AdScam into the conversation.

    Maybe next time you'll stick to the topic at hand?

    And while you're at it, maybe you can talk some sense into Ms. Bennett when you see her at the Liberal "Thinkers" Conference? Oh, that's right, I forgot... Liberal MP's aren't "Thinkers", and as such weren't invited.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 09:50:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    What was that you said about the Liberals manufacturing controversies?

    "Job" typically refers to a paid position. At least according to my dictionary.* "Real Job" isn't the best choice of words, but doesn't show the contempt of stay-at-home mothers that you see. And it's a phrase used all the time--even by MPs referring to their previous private sector jobs compared to their jobs as elected representatives.

    The UCCB is 1200 per child per year. That's less than 3.50 per day. That does not pay for childcare. And I very much doubt that for most people it makes the difference between a parent staying at home, or entering the paid workforce. It is a token amount of money, given to anyone with kids, that cannot possibly achieve it's stated objective. I think it qualifies as an attempt to "bribe taxpayers with their own money".

    Whether or not a universally accessible and affordable system that gives people access to childcare (similar to the system we have for healthcare or education) is desirable is debatable.

    I wouldn't dispute the claim that children are, all other things being equal, better off being raised by their families.

    But that is no longer possible for most families; not as possible as it once was. Wages for most people have not increased in real terms for the last few decades. Two incomes are generally needed to raise a family. And even then, families are taking on increasing levels of debt.

    What will the Conservatives (or any party for that matter) do to improve THAT situation? That is, is anyone willing to restructure the economy so that a single income can, for most people, support a family? [In my opinion, this should mean that two parents can work part time, rather than full time or overtime, and share childcare responsibilities more equally].

    *job 1 |jäb|
    1 a paid position of regular employment : jobs are created in the private sector, not in Washington | a part-time job.
    2 a task or piece of work, esp. one that is paid : she wants to be left alone to get on with the job | you did a good job of explaining.

  • At Tue. Mar. 23, 09:58:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Anon1152 said…

    "Anon, it's Politics 101... it's a minority government. You want spending to change? Make sure you do your part to get a majority."

    A majority for what party? The last party to consistently achieve balanced budgets was the Liberal party, when they had a majority (and when they had a minority under Martin, but I'd be happy to not let that count. The time horizon is too short).

    The Conservatives are in power. They are responsible for their actions. If anything, the "bad" things they do should make us MORE wary of giving them a majority.


Post a Comment

<< Home