Thanks Stephen

So?
He HAS a child care plan, and understands that the CONSTITITION says welfare is a provincial responsibility. $100 per child under 12, tax breaks for companies who open day care spots and yeah, taxing you less to give you more money to spend on child care is a pretty solid plan. And if you really think that the federal childcare plan would have been run efficiently and effectively, you've been whining about Stephen too long to pay attention to the health care system. He ran on the idea and you're complaining? Only hippie Liberals would be upset and surprised that someone plans to stick to their platform.
Seriously, Thank You Mr. Prime Minister for reading the constitution and taxing me less! Thank you for realizing that a bloated federal juggernaut can't effectively create a federal run child care program when provinces are really, really diverse. Thank you for realizing that if Quebec can do it so effectively, that other provinces ought to be able to too.
Thank you. You haven't even held a parliament session, but you've shown more leadership and received more wanton hippie wrath than anyone else over the last 10+ years.

For someone with such a username, you skip a few steps there.

If we were 'taxed less', both parents wouldn't have to work in order to afford daycare. Or housing for that matter. And Quebec, while it does have a fantastic program, does run a huge defecit to support it.

If the CPC does cancel the Federal program, child spaces will rise to about $700 a month per child. Far more than Harper is providing. Some single mothers pay less than that for rent in a month. If they keep the system that the liberals put in place, then single mothers can afford to send children there, and more spaces will be created.

And we have been paying attention to Healthcare. We notice yearly how there are billions in surplus, plus billions we are double taxed on (EI, CPP); but somehow there isn't any money for healthcare.


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Oh good, you have noticed. yeah, that's not because healthcare is impossible to fund, it's because it's impossible for the government to manage effectively. Just like child care will be sooner than later.
And yes, some child care openings are expensive in some places, right now but well...if they're taxed less to the degree they don't need to be double income than huzzah for the conservatives, that would be amazing. I don't think it'll come to that, but I like your dream.
And yeah, for stay at home parents, they don't get anything under a massive federal plan, nor do neighbourhood babysitters, or any small institution. The only places that will be open, are federally built and managed daycares placed wherever the fatcats say, so maybe not so convenient for the massive percentage of Canadians who live in a rural community, eh? In fact, it might be way better if companies built their own daycares so that the kids will be guaranteed spots somewhere the parents can take them.
And yeah, Quebec might run a deficit, but so what? It's their decision, not the federal government's, so says me, and the constitution. Why doesn't anyone think that's important. Same as health care, let the provinces handle them. The federal government can help provide minimums and ease up on the rampant taxation. That's really why Quebec wants to leave, they want to make their own decisions. They wont actually spend their tax dollars on popcorn and peanuts, the federal government will.
Also, there is no surplus. Overtaxation on the federal level and privatization on the provincial level is the only reason we're not sinking in taxes. And yeah, since I'm pretty sure this counts as a time of prosperity, we should probably REALLY be taxing everyone a lot less, and letting them make their own decisions. I really love Mr John Maynard Keynes, but I REALLY love his second paragraph.

Ah yes, the dream of a stay at home parent. After all that would be better for society. If we reduced the tax burden then would it be possible... Probably not. Because of the wall mart corpoate mentality. The corporation I worked for for ten years would say every year at the company christmas party-"We had the best year ever thanks to this excellent team, however, we have to tighten our belts because times are tough". IN THE SAME BREATH! This spells out the problem eloquently.
If a corporate planner gets ahold of tax cuts they adjust plans accordingly. Wage cuts and bonus reductions will follow.
If not that then the parents would probably just take the money to invest in cheap plastic crap for their children who have been indoctrinated by the corporate advertizing brainwashers. Sad, but true.

Are todays tax levels a driver for the 'WalMart' mentality, or are corporate policies?

I know my tax burden is huge compared to my fathers. In adjusted dollars, he brought home far less than I, but I couldn't possible afford a stay at home wife, house, two kids and two cars on what I make.

Does that force people to buy crap at Walmart? Does people's low buying power mean they can't shop at The Bay anymore? Or is it that the bottom line is more important to the employer than the well being of the employee?


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Corporations think individually of course. The employee is becoming more and more easily replacable making their jobs less secure. Always having less monies to spend on (Plastic crap). At the company I worked before it took years to properly train an employee but with advancments in equipment and troubleshooting software they've effectively rendered the troubleshooters nearly extinct. The trend is everywhere. Although advancements are good for society as a whole I believe eventually wages will cut to the point where we won't be able to afford social programs at all. Being individual, the corporations don't realize they're eating their young.(metephorically speaking).

People will lose their production jobs, but that doesn't mean jobs are disappearing. For every robot built, there opens up a job for someone to maintain and improve that robot, you just have to remain adaptable. It really is just that easy. If someone you know got laid off, tell them to move to Alberta, or to learn carpentry. We need carpenters badly. It's not like there are no jobs available right now, on the contrary there are thousands, and if they seem inconvenient and they just don't feel like working well...that's total BS. I don't feel like paying my taxes to support people like that (I do, because it really is Caesar's but you know what I mean). But that's not even the issue. The issue is; how can it possibly help people who work in production style jobs to have taxes raised on themselves and corporations, lowering consumption and therefore lowering production and the need for those workers to exist?
Plus, yeah, every generation before this one got by just fine without a child care program, and seeing how the nation is running a real deficit, it might not be the best time to expand expenditure. Maybe I'm crazy, but when the market is powerful, why should government services be expanding? Seriously, the second paragraph of Keynes is the most important one. Plus you know, maybe if we did cut services and did something radical like...I don't know...paying down the debt, we could get to a place where 33 cents on every taxed dollar isn't paying off the interest on our massive debt. Seems to me like if we were only paying 30 cents on every dollar to interest that extra 3% of income without raising taxes could be used to fun all kinds of crazy projects like...paying down more debt, doubling military expenditure, or if we're lame enough, expanding our bureaucracy even further to the point where we can ask government officials the optimum time to go to the bathroom, and what to eat. Both of those things sound better to me than having some childless bureaucrat in Ottawa tell me how to raise my children.
Or we could keep putting ourselves into debt...whatever. Really depends on how badly we want to ruin this country by the time we die, but if in times of prosperity we're getting even poorer, I wonder how it'll go when the markets slow down.

And I'm well aware that the fed. gov't has run a huge surplus, but it hasn't put one cent into paying down the debt, and it's been neglecting payments to the provinces that are running deficits even though they're privatizing faster than Mr Martin can eat his hash brownies.
Well, yeah, a lot of that deficit is really Dalton's fault, but for the exact same reason: expanding government expenditures.

And as we embrace the corporate machine jobs will continue to disappear. The oil money in alberta ,because of the current price, is making them wealthy. This is a short term gain and will support a large service industry. Thats why everything is rosy there right now. I say nationalize the basic human needs and let business wrestle our dollars away buying crap we don't need. Our medical system has been abused for years to try and discredit it. Yet since it remains the sweetheart of the voter it won't be on the chopping block until Harper has a couple of good kicks at it. As for the debt, even with low interest rates we can't manage to pay it down. I don't understand that either. But the future looks even more bleak as wages fall so does the tax base and the ability to pay it back. We have our window of opportunity now. We could pay back 7 billion if he scrapped the military spending...

Or scrap thousands of superfluous government jobs and reform the health care system.
And jobs really haven't been disappearing, just changing and relocating. The economy today supports millions more people then ten years ago, good times and bad times will come, but a system that's ultimately dependant upon consumption will always make sure that the majority of people have an income. And remember, every time a nnew product is created, there's more production and more retail to be done. The only difference is that now we have to share those jobs with people in developing countries (but once they hav money we'll get to produce things for them, too).