x

[Lazlo]

I wish I had a hand gun right now.

[Birdy]

I, for one, would love to see a party focus on the family structure, to help Canada answer such questions as:

• What are the family structures currently in place in Canada?
  
• How have the structures of families been changing over the past, say, 10, 20, and 30 years?
  
• How do the changes correlate with changes in, say, immigration, economic changes (e.g., rising and falling industries), media portrayals, etc.?
  
• Beyond the "traditional" family structure (married man + woman, with kids), what other structures are possible?
  
• Can government's definition of marriage (and, implicitly, "family") be used to affect positive social change?
  
• If it can, which family structures could/should be supported by government (including legal definitions of family and marriage, along with taxation, benefits, etc.).
  

That list of questions can easily be expanded.

Saying the CPC is "focus[ed] the family structure" is, to me, not quite accurate. They're fixated on preserving the limited/exclusive (and excluding) definition of marriage, independent what's good or bad for people and society (or, at least, without telling anybody why that limited/exclusive [and excluding] definition is best for society).

Aloha,

Brad

excellent questions brad.

aside from what the conservatives think the definition of marriage is, which i by no means agree with, they also have other key tenets to which i do agree with (in light of focusing on the family):

• universal childcare payments
  
• choice in childcare
  
• tax breaks for stay at home parents
  
• continued tax breaks for single income families
  
• um.. tax cuts in general
  

to name a few.

[Lazlo]

BANG!

[Birdy]

megs - in more detail, it shouldn't be a government's job to parent our children. the CPC believes in lesser government, which is step one in that direction. they believe in an education system which is 'back to the basics' (to steal from ernie eves)-- ie, reading, writing, arithmetics (in the primary levels), they believe in choice in childcare, childcare payments to all, taxbreaks for families who are trying to "family" by keeping one parent at home, tax breaks for families who are broken, tax cuts that put money back in the hands of families in general. i do disagree with the 'traditional' definition of marriage rampage and think any conservatives bigots who agree with it in the name of preservation or not.

[Birdy]

BANG!

lol.. bring it.

on second thought... don't.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Guest

[Lazlo]

I was shooting myself actually.

I don't fight girls, so when your balls are ready to drop let me know.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Birdy, do you really think this "focus on the family" (the phrase will forver make me shudder) is about more than getting people to feel contempt for others that are flagged as different, in order to score a few more votes so they can get on with what's really in their interests? Jesus, who but disgruntled teenagers will ever come out and say they're actually against families? "Don't vote for the NDP, they want to eat your children!"

I mean, this is the real failing of (modern?) democracy - that it asks us to do no more than scratch an X in a little circle once every few years, based on whatever passions happen to be going through our heads at the moment. Then people get shat on. All you have to do is listen to the language that comes out at election and how much of it is calculated to push our emotional hotbuttons.

[Birdy]

c'mon lazlo.. it's not worth suicide. just hit your 'back' button.

[Birdy]

Birdy, do you really think this "focus on the family" (the phrase will forver make me shudder) is about more than getting people to feel contempt for others that are flagged as different, in order to score a few more votes so they can get on with what's really in their interests? Jesus, who but disgruntled teenagers will ever come out and say they're actually against families? "Don't vote for the NDP, they want to eat your children!"

lol.. umm.. probably.. i mean you are right.. it really boils down to lesser government doc in the end.

I mean, this is the real failing of (modern?) democracy - that it asks us to do no more than scratch an X in a little circle once every few years, based on whatever passions happen to be going through our heads at the moment. Then people get shat on. All you have to do is listen to the language that comes out at election and how much of it is calculated to push our emotional hotbuttons.

again.. you're right.. in the end, we will all get shat on, time and time again.. i don't know why any of us get so fired up over politics.. i mean i came close to the "i'm quitting this thread" post a few times in the harper announces cuts thread. i honestly can say my feelings were hurt here and there, and to voluntarily subject msyelf to that? what's the matter with me? maybe i'm just a sucker for debate.. maybe we all are.. who knows. i do think there are a few people around this board that do feel like real change is possible.. and that belief is admirable, to say the least. maybe i'm one of them.

[d_rawk]

Don't vote for the NDP, they want to eat your children!

Oh, no, it's true! As someone who spends a lot of time talking to NDP folk, I assure you, those family-hating faggots really would eat your children given the chance. With relish! (the appetite, not the condiment ... but possibly the condiment as well).

[Lazlo]

Don't vote for the NDP, they want to eat your children!

Oh, no, it's true! As someone who spends a lot of time talking to NDP folk, I assure you, those family-hating faggots really would eat your children given the chance. With relish! (the appetite, not the condiment ... but possibly the condiment as well).

I'm joining the NDP.

[d_rawk]

Or ... is the NDP ... joining you?

[Birdy]

Women rights activists (and others of course ) have been trying to get this in place since the 70's!

seriously, this is a noble effort.

the national daycare program creates another option for child rearing (ie. another choice).

again, i'm all for lesser government.. instead issue grants for NPOs to operate.

Most people in Canada do not have the luxury of staying home with their children.

no they do not.. unfortunately.

Many families in Canada need two incomes to stay above the poverty line!

true, true.

Many people in Canada are raising their kids alone and can't stay home!

no doubt.. precisely why i support childcare payments for all..

In terms of the money 1200 a year is peanuts! The average cost to send a child to a descent daycare is 8000 a year!

true.. but 1200 is better than zero. government grants to NPO operating as daycares could drastically reduce daycare costs. incentives to businesses to open daycares on their own accord could help too.

And finally why should rich parents be given an extra 1200 a year?

what ever happened to equality?

[Birdy]

no quotes.. sorrrrrrrrry!

[hamilton]

What if I have a child, and I get $1200 per year to put that child in some sort of day-care facility, but I instead choose to spend it on, say, crack? Or whatever, it doesn't have to be something bad, just something completely unrelated to child care. Maybe a voucher-type system would be better - you get to choose your own daycare facility, and have a voucher which can be used only at such a facility.

I know, of course, that this system can also be abused - I could trade my voucher to someone else with a child and still use the $1200 to buy that jewel-encrusted television remote I've had my eye on for a while. While it might be fine from an economical viewpoint to allow that money to be spent however the recipient feels fit, it doesn't necessarily address the issue that the CPC says that it is trying to address.

[d_rawk]

Yep, absolutely. Under the CPC proposal, you are quite welcome to spend it on crack (whether or not you share that crack with your kids is, presumably, entirely up to yourself).

[Lazlo]

Nice, I'm going to squeeze out a couple puppies, buy a shit load of crack and leave them to fend for themselves on the floor, eating carpet fuzz and what ever creatures might be unlucky enough to cross their paths.

[hamilton]

Yep, absolutely. Under the CPC proposal, you are quite welcome to spend it on crack (whether or not you share that crack with your kids is, presumably, entirely up to yourself).

Fuck that, I'm not sharing my crack with anyone.

[Birdy]

Most people in Canada do not have the luxury of staying home with their children. Many families in Canada need two incomes to stay above the poverty line! Many people in Canada are raising their kids alone and can't stay home! In terms of the money 1200 a year is peanuts! The average cost to send a child to a descent daycare is 8000 a year! Many of them cost a lot more. And finally why should rich parents be given an extra 1200 a year?

The whole point of the post is that the above statements are interconnected' date=' interrelated aspects of the problem. Not separate things. [/quote']

sorry.. just trying to debate.

[Birdy]

i support government issued diaper vouchers.

[hamilton]

i support government issued diaper vouchers.

I get your point, but I don't think that's in anyone's election platform.

I just don't see how giving people money and telling them that they "should" spend it on childcare actually helps to solve anything if there's no way to ensure that the money will be spent on something that will actually benefit the child.

If your point is that we should be free to spend as much money as we can earn with as few restrictions from the government as possible - which is an entirely valid viewpoint, if not one that I agree with 100% - and that the CPC offers you the best way to achieve that reality, just say so. Don't go dressing up a no-strings-attached child care tax credit as proof that the CPC is more committed to the family and to children than other parties.

(Of course, this is entirely academic for me, as I have no intention of ever fathering a squalling little brat.)

[Lazlo]

(Of course, this is entirely academic for me, as I have no intention of ever fathering a squalling little brat.)

Now I know what to tell our son.

[Birdy]

i support government issued diaper vouchers.

I get your point' date=' but I don't think that's in anyone's election platform.

I just don't see how giving people money and telling them that they "should" spend it on childcare actually helps to solve anything if there's no way to ensure that the money will be spent on something that will actually benefit the child.

If your point is that we should be free to spend as much money as we can earn with as few restrictions from the government as possible - which is an entirely valid viewpoint, if not one that I agree with 100% - and that the CPC offers you the best way to achieve that reality, just say so. Don't go dressing up a no-strings-attached child care tax credit as proof that the CPC is more committed to the family and to children than other parties.

(Of course, this is entirely academic for me, as I have no intention of ever fathering a squalling little brat.)

[/quote']

i thought i had made this point someplace somewhere along the line.. maybe not. the tax credit was just one point amongst others that the CPC has to focus on the family outside of actually 'becoming' the family.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

what does family have to do with politics--I mean are you not a Libertarian??

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

I have to admit, and maybe you could call this ignorance... but, I really find politics to be extremely transparent and simple.. you talk about "family." Why do you think the CPC have such a policy?? Because that is the sector of the population that they are campaigning towards. Conservatives equal containment. And what I mean by that is, they don't want change, they are "conserving." They do not want to think outside of the box, unless it will guarantee them enough votes to get a majority so that they can continue to pursue the party politics of their nature. This includes providing opportunities and or attracting big business to invest in Canada. Therefore, they create more jobs.... And more people work, however, they are anti--union so these jobs are provided with the condition that whoever is providing them is satisfied with the profit they make before they spend it on their staff, or workers etc... Tax breaks are not intended to benefit the average Canadian, it is smoke and mirrors, I think you need to see through that. It will be money that is taken away from our social programs that many Canadians depend on... Conservatives are capitalists... Survival of the fittest. real simple.