What happened to having civil discussions or debates amongst ourselves?

The current political climate is really starting to grind my gears. Either you agree with what a vocal segment of society tells you to agree with or if you dare buck the trend, you get publicly shamed you until you apologize and conform.

I'll stay away from the real big political landmines here, but as I sit waiting for the federal budget to be officially unveiled, I hear pundits on the radio mutter about how any "tax breaks" Stephen Harper's Conservative government have waiting for us are "for the rich". Are they? Hiking the monthly Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) to $160/month from $100 will help all parents of children under the age of six years. Why is this a bad thing? I understand it is taxed, so I'll have to give some of it back and those who earn little will get to keep it all of it (or more than so-called 'rich people' might.)

Then there's income splitting. Now there's a tax benefit that is for the rich only, right? I suppose when one would argue that one person earning $80,000 a year paying significantly more in taxes than two people earning $40,000 each is "fair" and one could say that in either scenario they are "rich"... but is it? Are they? Perhaps, especially in the eyes of those who depend on the Guaranteed Income Supplement to make ends meet, I'll concede that.

Here's where I have a hard time understanding those who proclaim themselves to be "progressive" and actively denounce the initiatives listed above: they say that whatever amount the Harper government will 'lose' in revenue by "subsidizing the rich" is repugnant and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Many will, however, actively campaign for a national subsidized daycare program that undoubtedly would cost significantly more.

I know that the "traditional family" is something many would love to see disappear for one reason or another, but what's wrong with a government finally stepping up and doing something to help Canadians have children and raise them at home? We keep hearing that we aren't sustaining our own population and as a result we must depend on immigration to keep our numbers up... surely it's more expensive to put someone through the immigration channels than it is to provide a $2,000 (maximum - not everyone will max out this capped non-refundable tax benefit) break to thousands of families from coast to coast. And what's wrong with hiking the Universal Child Care Benefit? Only rich people have kids?

Maybe that's a point that deserves closer scrutiny.

I turned forty years old this year. Some time this week my wife and I will bring a new baby home - our first. Why now? Because we couldn't afford to have a child and lose part of our family income while my wife stays at home to raise it. I know - it's wrong to expect mom to stay at home, right? I'm such a sexist pig. Well we couldn't afford to have her go back to work and spend upwards of 80% of her net income on daycare. And what if we had a second? So we paid down our debt (most of which was her post-secondary education student loans) until I became able to support the household on my own. ...or at least I think I'll be able to!

At the end of the day, there are proposed initiatives from both the left and the right that purport to "help" young families. One involves making it possible to have a child and send it off to someone (or a business) to help care for said child while both parents work to pay the bills and the other goes a long way to help young families raise a child at home like their parents and their parents' parents once did. Why is that so wrong and apparently so politically incorrect?

It's OK to spend billions on daycare for everyone (rich and poor) according to some, and others are content importing people from other countries to make sure that someone is working and paying taxes while our population ages and more and more move into retirement.

There's nothing wrong with either option - I think - but why is there something so patently wrong with option number three? I don't know how closely providing a $2,000 (max) tax break to families with income splitting comes to the cost of "daycare for everybody!" or to bring in hundreds of thousands of folks from across the globe to go through the bureaucratic immigration process... it won't be more, I'm pretty sure of that and will very likely be significantly less given the cost of Quebec's daycare system.

So can we all agree that any option is viable and quit the casting of aspersions and threats of shaming one another for not agreeing that one's ideal option is the ONLY option? That is the opinion of one segment of our society. It's valid - but why does that segment of our society and many media outlets appear to insist that their view should be the only view and any other view is irrelevant, immaterial, intolerant or "only for the rich" in order to make their position reign supreme?

I'd happily be a stay at home dad - or would happily have taken an alternate career path had my wife's been any different. But I have to play the cards I've got... and unfortunately for some we're working on the 'traditional family model' and whether that's politically correct or not, it is what it is.

Let's have an intelligent conversation - Voltaire would have wanted it that way. I can't help but wonder what he'd think of our collective behaviour of late - but maybe I'm just turning into an old fart so what do I know?