I wonder if she knows.

To give some explanation why childcare costs could “balloon” under national, public provision.

My mistake. I had assumed you were referring to direct cost to the consumer. I can see how a federally-run programme could be more expensive than a private solution.

I honestly don’t think it would be very long before there would be a giant union for public daycare workers.

Which, however, is a slippery slope. I would be interested in facts that quantify this point.

I really didn’t think I needed to get explicit about the fact that this example can be representative of a trend that has resulted at least in part from the extra child care dollars available.

And just to be fair, your example can representative of nothing. After all, a single anecdote is statistically insignificant.

However, more providers (supply) in relation to the demand should create a downward pressure on cost.

And of course what I provided was an individual example. I really didn’t think I needed to get explicit about the fact that this example can be representative of a trend that has resulted at least in part from the extra child care dollars available.

• there would immediately need to be a government resource infrastructure to administer the program. ANY projection saying that it would be an inexpensive admin structure should use the gun registry as an example of how that works. (and there are a lot more kids in childcare than there are guns)

• With increased regulation would come increased licensing, training and accreditation issues. Not necessarily a bad thing from a quality-of-care standpoint, but costly.

• This would now become BIG business with a lot of money flowing through. I honestly don’t think it would be very long before there would be a giant union for public daycare workers. Wages would increase dramatically. (and likely out of all proportion to the work being done. The CAW, for example, has negotiated its members right out of their jobs by increasing production costs to the point that the companies they work for are no longer competetive and can’t afford to employ as many people. All because the union couldn’t figure out that a menial, anybody-can-do-it assembly line job wasn’t worth $90K a year)

• MANY people who are exercising other options that don’t use any tax dollars would start using the public system.

All of this amounts to grossly unfair tax penalties on those who choose something else, and especially on those who make enough money to get walloped with tax levels that already border on the opressive.

Of course the Liberals didn’t spend any money on their proposal; they got elected out of power before the could do anything.

What have I said that gives you the impression I assume the Liberals are doing more?

Two things.

1. What on earth are you going on about? No one deleted any of your messages.
2. You may want to re-read the comment policy. Further thread jacking could result in your messages being moderated or deleted. By all means, we encourage dialogue here, but this is not a democracy and you have no rights. We reserve the right to edit/moderate/delete an message.

He could change it if he wanted to, either to gain more votes or to update it. But there was nothing necessarily new to introduce. He decided to run again to get a fresh new mandate on his previous plans, which the Liberals and NDP have been fighting him on from the beginning.

Canadian voters are free to reject giving him that fresh new mandate if they dislike his already established and previously revealed economic platform. Or, if they are frustrated with the infighting by opposing parties (our parliamentary system of government enjoys an adversarial form of government – jurisprudence 101), they can give Harper a majority and he can fulfill all his previously laid out economic promises with hinderance.

It’s really that simple.

The complication comes with trying to anticipate how other Canadians will vote so that you can hinder or improve Harper’s chances of being re-elected.

My first thought, perhaps paranoia, is that the person who removed them has no interest in being loyal to the truth.

Particularly since there was no rebuttal. It appears, perhaps incorrectly, like censorship.

However, for the sake of interest in the truth, I’d be interested in knowing who removed them and why they were removed, assuming that there might actually be a good reason for removing them, as opposed to there being an inability to refute the argument.

Now, of course, if this message is not responded to, or it is removed, that will speak volumes about the motives of those who run this avenue of expression, whether that appears like an insult or not.

What happened to seeking “knowledge” or was that not a genuine statement? Somebody’s wife is certainly convinced that her husbands motives are not bad. I’d be interested is seeing him expain it now.

There weren’t any bad words. No sexual comments. No references to violence. No abuse of the language whatsoever. He-he.

Just call me “cynically removed.” You likely don’t want me here anymore because I provide information that hurts your agenda.

Is this the spin zone where if you don’t agree you aren’t welcomed?