[Newsbot]

Title: Conservatives defend child-care benefits in wake of PBO report
Category: Political
Posted By: andyt
Date: 2015-03-31 17:11:18
Canadian

[andyt]

$1:

A new report by Canada's parliamentary budget officer shows more than half of the money Ottawa intends to put toward child care this year will go to families with little or no child-care expenses.

What a bunch of idiots.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

$1:

The PBO says the two programs combined cover roughly 67 per cent of what families with young children spend on childcare. Conversely, it finds families with older children stand to receive nearly eight times the amount they spend on caring for their offspring.

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care.


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care.


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.

Zero benefit? I don't know about that. Considering how close the sovereignty vote was a few years back, you could easily argue that failure to institute official bilingualism would have resulted in the break-up of Canada.

Other than that, I agree with your post though. If this was a spin by the PBO, that's pretty poor. They are supposed to be independent.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care.


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.

$1:

The PBO includes in the latter figure families with children over the age of 13 as well as families with a stay-at-home parent or some other form of unpaid childcare.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm curious here. How does getting $60/mo for each child over six equate to receiving up to 8 times as much as they spend on caring for their offspring?

This is also the fun part of universal social programs.

But just as a comparison, the implementation of bilingualism has so far cost Canadians about $1.7 trillion dollars for what essentially amounts to zero benefit to Canada. But putting more money back into the pockets of people raising kids, now that's just a horrible thing. Who cares if they don't have to worry about actual child care anymore? I mean kids are super cheap to raise once you factor out the cost of child care.


You'll note that the report didn't say it would be going to families who didn't need it, but to families who will have little to no child care expenses. While it might seem like semantics to you, there is a distinct difference.

$1:

The PBO includes in the latter figure families with children over the age of 13 as well as families with a stay-at-home parent or some other form of unpaid childcare.

Oh, well then. I guess once kids reach 13 they're cost-free.
Once again, I see no problem with putting more money back into the pockets of those who are still raising kids.

The fact you consider this to be an issue is hilarious considering your love affair with Norwegian socialism. Universality is socialism.

[andyt]

Bring in a proper childcare program, like Norway's, I'm all for that. But with parents struggling to afford childcare, don't subsidized the ones that don't need it.

[DrCaleb]

I guess the irony that child care benefits have risen to 4 times the annual budget under a "Conservative" government is lost on many.

[andyt]

4 x annual budget?

[DrCaleb]

From "The National" last night, the budget went from $680 million in 2004 to 7 billion in 2014. It went from $2 billion in 2009 to $7B today under Harper.

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

[2Cdo]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

And by "they" you mean the Liberals.

[andyt]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

And by "they" you mean the Liberals.

Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.

[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

And by "they" you mean the Liberals.

Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.

[DrCaleb]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And they promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.

And by "they" you mean the Liberals.

No, I mean the 'Government'. The motion in Parliament at the time was unanimous, so they can all be held accountable.

[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Yep, the Reformacons can't be bothered with such trivial matters. Fuck the poor, as long as less taxes for the well off. Afflict the afflicted, comfort the comfortable.

Fuckin' right.

Now get me that double-double.