myata

That's true. From practical perspective, calling for this kind of reform would cost too much (in votes) for any party to attempt, without some dire reason that would justify it.

OK, OAS and CPP do seem to be different things (all the things you can learn here!), thanks for the nudge to check it out. CPP being a contribution scheme, it is (a defined benefit, but I kind of agree that OAS should be linked to income. Maybe with federal surpluses rolling in, things aren't as bad just yet? Still, even if these funds were switched 100% to welfare system, it isn't clear how it would advance the cause of poor children. It's quite obvious that direct welfare payments are on average at level with the current state of economy. Some, perhaps, can be invested into development and councelling programes but those must be specific to the need (functional and local). I doubt there's a "magic bullet" solution (and I'm not sure we've even defined the problem in the first place).

I guess wishful thinking is the last (and most powerful yet) secret weapon in Bushes' clique arsenal.

????? Can you spell "Canadian Pension Plan"? Your payments into the pension plan have nothing to do with benefits you'll receive upon retirement? You're truly breaking new ground here, my friend. CPP payments and OAS benefits that result from it are, like, life insurance. You contribute, you receive benefit. Really easy. Those who do not contribute may still receive it as a social benefit to allow decent living when they can no longer provide for themselves, but it doesn't change the big picture one bit. CPP is not a tax, it's a pension plan for all residents of this country. One is supposed to contribute (when they can) and one is entitled to benefits, especially if they did contribute for most of their productive lives. And the plight of poor little children has little to do with this particular subject. BTW, as it came into the discussion, maybe (at last) it's about time to start charting some solutions - those that will work and actually help some poor children and, perhaps, some of their parents (note, maybe not ALL poor children on this planet), as opposed to pathetically pointing it out at every occasion?

Er... shouldn't we wait with our valuable comments until at least the first episode is out? (The trailers didn't hit me as being extremely funny, rather as trying to be funny in a politically correct manner, but I'll reserve my opinion till having viewed at least one episode - which may or may not happen).

When can we expect your first hand written card, you know, with Baghdad postage and nice rosy pictures? You can share the trip. Maybe you'll indeed see something we don't get from the news.

From 2006 Special Income Tax and Benefit Guide Line 250 - Other payment deduction ... generally you can deduct the amount from line 147 of your return. This is the total of workers' compensation payments, social assistance payments, and net federal supplements (box 21 T4A(OAS)). ... OAS pension is box 18 on T4A(OAS). Looks like it's you who can't read the form, even though it was made especially shall we say, simple, to avoid any misunderstanding. I wouldn't trust you to count my loose change, let alone do taxes. The guide also mentions that benefits will have to be repayed if net income exceeds 62K. So, to round it up: one pays CPP for years and years, it's not a tax so one can reasonably expect to get something out of these payments upon retirement, and it's still limited to a certain income cutoff. Sorry, you'll have to explain a bit better where do you see that gross injustice.

Personally, I too believe that status quo will not resolve many problems. Only gradual development of native communities alongside with mainstream society will. However, treaties must be dealt with. Should the nations be given a choice, to become fully independent states relying solely on their own resources, or abandon treaty privileges and become citizens of this country on par with everybody else?

In my view, Karzai has associated himself (and his government) with the West a bit too closely. This is in the country that has a history of troubled relations with western neighbours (Britain, Russia, US). There's nothing so far that would give us any indication that he would be able to control the country without massive support from the west. This makes him, in the eyes of many, a puppet of the West, hardly a stable position. This is a general problem with foreign powers trying to interfere in the countries where they have little or no clue of internal power dynamics. Removing established power is not an answer to any problem, unless a stable, locally supported and trusted alternative is available.

And where's the "tax free" part is coming from? I'm looking at this year's income tax form, OAS is reported as regular income and deducted (non-refundable) from tax at minimum tax rate and to the max of $2000 pa. That means that max tax saving is 15% of $2000 = $300, not "all free". And that isn't a lot especially if people paid CPP contributions for several decades.

Well I have to agree here... Until such times as the likes of him could be brought to justice though, all claims to "justice" would sound somewhat hollow.

Interesting... If we assume top commander's direct responsibility for that's happening on the ground (as it was applied to Saddam), how many of these charges could/should GWB & Co be indicted on?

I'd wait for you to go there and report first hand before taking it on faith. Please refer to the Iraq thread for the latest civil casualty figures.

Perhaps you can now pray for the well being of people in Iraq - whose plight these days doesn't seem to be much better than under Saddam? Just a suggestion. Who knows, maybe it'll be answered (soon, too)?

Good point. Thanks for the tip.

I'd still like to find out what is the exact meaning of this convenient term, preferably with examples from this thread. Or, like many leftie notions, its its so elastic and adaptable to the need that it becomes obvious (ly meaningless)? Would any discussion of shortcomings or issues with welfare system, which does not result in unanimous approval of 100% increase in benefits constitue that famous "bashing", Rabble style?

Yes, I agree too, (at least) trying to differentiate the causes of condition can be a place to start. Disablity as opposed to mental health issues to substance abuse/addiction to lack of education or experience to language / communications skills to family/children situation are all different problems that would probably rquire different kind of help.

As I said, short of fresh ideas. Instead, big on "branding" (another leftie thingy, re e.g. Bubble - btw what happened to it of late - my browser returns http error??? ). You must be thinking that all problems have trivial solutions and sticking a label on opponent in a discussion is a winning alternative to rational argument. P.S Bubble link should work now

No - worse. Saddam came to power in turmoil in the Baas party, in semi-legitimate way. Pinochet started a coup against legitimate democratically elected government (where were you, oh prophets of holy democracy???), followed by years of deadly repressions which took thousands of lives. According to many reports, tortures and executions of most brutal kind, which Saddam himself could envy (or be a worthy disciple of) were not uncommon. I guess they don't teach much of that in America?

Now, back to the beginning - I do not see much of that "poor bashing - poor beating", at least on this thread. However, there seems to be quite a bit of "poor loving". That generic, free of any responsibility or ideas kind of "love" that is so common among marginal left. Most often it comes down to this trivial recipe: someone else must shell out more to solve my problems. Just like the proposals in the opening piece: hugely expensive programs which may not even be feasible to support, given that most provinces's finances already stressed to the limit supporting health care and education. Yet the reality is very easy to grasp: a couple with one income earner in an entry position (in Ontario), working near full time hours will earn around 15 K. A couple on welfare will make around 12 K. Maybe we should turn our attention to realistic and practical ideas and solutions to how the plight of less fortunate can be helped without increasing handout or implementing grandiouse projects.

Let me guess... Could it be $ 20K Guaranteed Annual Income, no string attached, no questions asked and for life?

Pinochet was "their son of the bitch" to the end. They don't hang them, they cherish them. I agree with someone from Amnesty International I heard on the radio this moring. "He was executed as a result of a deeply flawed trial. That's what Suddam himself did so well". Looks like not much has changed there. Little reason to be jolly.

You right. Under USA guns pointed sure does it. (if their democratic achievements were so great, maybe, one day they could be trusted to keep him in their custody if only for the last few hours).

As one can clearly see, forced "liberation" doesn't really liberate anybody. With that in mind, hanging (or not) one individual, even as brutal as Saddam, doesn't really change much (anything?). As a matter of fact, there can be any number of brutal dictators walking this planet at this time. That one of them fell victim to the random wrath of superpower is hardly a cause to celebrate (or even call "justice").

The problem with workfare is that someone has to "run" it. Private sector cannot assure employment and public one is too expensive to run such program full time. Giving out just enough for reasonable subsitence but no more apprears to be the only realistic option at the moment.