Moonbox

kairos let me get this straight...You're saying that people with strict Christian beliefs are lunatics? For the record, I'm 100% pro-abortion. That's nobody's business but the woman's. Saying people who disagree with this on religious grounds are lunatics, however, is the sort of brainless rhetoric that dumbs every political debate. A religious person's beliefs are as often as not irrational, illogical and impossible to prove. It's faith. If you're going to call it lunacy then you're calling the Muslim facing Mecca crazy for doing it, or a Hindu is bonkers for believing cows are sacred. Have some respect for religious beliefs. You don't have to believe in it yourself, but people with faith are generally brought up that way and know no other way to live. We can be thankful that our legislative system has evolved towards the practical and tangible and away from religious intangibles, and that our legal systems are based purely on logic and reason instead of belief.

The Senate as it stands is a joke. As long as these positions are appointed and have lifetime terms they'll never function as they are meant to.

So what we can expect is that the garbage from Japan will float around for awhile...sit on beaches etc, and eventually be forgotten. Good talk.

I'm not terribly worried about plastic particulate ending up in my food, sorry. This doesn't disintigrate overnight. Also, considering how dangerous the flotsam and jetsam is on our coasts, it's interesting to see how few accidents there have been. If this was the crisis you claim it to be, the government can hire people to fix it.

The volunteer firefighter isn't earning a firefighter's hourly wage. He's earning a tax credit and the government has recognized the importance of having volunteer firefighters in reserve in the case of catastrophe. The tax credit is an incentive to make sure that good people fill those positions. They're usually not necessary, but we want them there if they are. Most volunteer work does not share that criteria. No, it's not better. EI is way more expensive than welfare. I don't want to pay the higher EI benefits for the chronically unemployed and underemployed. As for these people being able to opt out of paying EI, no, I don't agree with that either for the previously mentioned reasons. People making subsistence wages pay bananas in premiums anyways, and the government has no way of knowing whether or not that person will at some point in their life become eligible to collect. Everyone who works pays premiums.

There have been a lot of proposals for people to do some sort of work to receive social benefits. For some reason that never seems to catch on. Also, eyeball, you need to give that 'paid volunteerism' a rest. The idea is moronic, sorry, not to mention completely contradicting.

I don't think you read anything I wrote, which is unsurprising given your tendency to stick your head in the sand anytime something comes up you don't agree with. Go back and read my post again, because I addressed those workers and the fact that nothing is stopping them from moving or changing careers and then becoming eligible for EI.

I have a problem with your views on mostly everything Topaz, because they're rarely based on clear-headed thinking. You protest and throw tantrums at everything the Conservatives do, whether it's smart or dumb, important or trivial, fair or unfair. If you showed even a slight sense of objectivity, things might be different, but you've yet to figure that part out. At least you're not starting 8-10 threads a week anymore about how Harper burnt his toast. As for this particular discussion, let's look at the merits (or lack thereof) of your proposal to allow people to "opt out" of EI. First off, it's not a savings plan. It's not something where what you put in you're going to get back. Most people never use even a fraction of what they put in. That's the way the system is supposed to work. It's supposed to help individuals and families that are having temporary difficulties to get back on their feet. The system relies on Canadians who will never use EI to fund the people who do need it. A tenured university professor pays EI, though he'll never use it, and so does a student cashier at a grocery store. Allowing people to 'opt out' based on their eligibility to use it in the future is a fundamentally broken idea based on that fact alone. Another point to mention is that nothing is stopping someone from going 15 years working seasonally (after opting out) and not paying EI, to then eventually getting a full time job (in a factory let's say), where he works for 12 months only to have the factory shut down, at which point he starts earning benefits. In this case, his contributions to the plan were next to meaningless, but his benefits kick in anyways. You pay premiums for the right to collect EI at any point in your life and your job unexpectedly disappears if you're eligible . None of this addresses how EI opt-outs would affect the businesses that pay these people either.

That is kind of damning...She's like...30 maybe. EI five or six times... This is exactly the sort of person who should be cut off.

So let me get this straight...You're saying that because wealthy Canadians can go south and pay top dollar for the best doctors in the United States, that means that US care is better overall? What was the life expectancy ranking again??? That's classic US political thinking.

I REALLY got a kick out of this yesterday. This guy is pretty clever. He'd make an epic forum troll.

Busdriver...+60k/year. How does that make sense?

The website's info is flat-out incorrect. I know this for a fact because it says a bus driver in Guelph on the high end makes less than $52000/year. I see their tax returns, and I know with certainty that a long-term bus driver in Guelph makes over $60,000/year in pure salary. I can think of literally zero scenarios where a profession like that, with no literally no required skills to speak of, merits a $60,000/year salary. This does not include benefits/pension.

Oh god guys. You're making me laugh out loud.

This guy is a nut job. Found his profile on Linkedin. Absolutely crazy.

Wow that was really well said. I couldn't agree more.

Our public servants, particularly the ones doing low-skill work (ie. bus drivers, clerks etc) are way overpaid and have been for a long time. Successive governments' short-term policies of appeasement have led to the problem, and now the only solution is layoffs and service reductions. It's a pretty sad when getting a government job (municipal, provincial or federal) is widely considered/known to be a golden ticket to early retirement with a fat pension.

In Topaz carnival-world, putting an end to a scam (ie. long-standing and widespread E.I. abuses) appears to be a scam itself.

If the fishing industry is viable, the canneries or packaging plants should pay more for the raw fish and consumers could pay more for the end product. Let the market decide if it's viable, not you.As for looking at the numbers, I got a good little chuckle out of that. If I were you, I'd try to avoid discussions involving numbers, particularly those involving economics, because you clearly don't have a clue. The suggestion that perpetually subsidizing a failing industry actually benefits the economy as a whole is a hippie/burnout fantasy that's been debunked a thousand times over by economists of every stripe throughout history. I suggest you do a little research into that. Cases can be made for subsidies where the government wants to hasten development of a new/growing industry, or to prop up an industry in the short term suffering from a shock to the economy (ie a massive recession), but never as a long term solution. Perpetual subsidies aren't good for the economy. They never have been, and they never will be. I understand that this isn't good news for the community of tree planters, landscapers etc., as their snowboarding holidays or trips to Vietnam won't be paid for by the taxpayers as easily, but alas, that's the way things have to be.

and it didn't include anything even as close to as bad as the USA's Indian Removal Act.

I think any violence on the First Nations' part will be met with in kind, and not by the military or police. If anything, it would take the police to keep the First Nations safe, and they know this. If there is violence, it will be the odd fringe yahoo, just like it is in any other culture or group, but certainly not matching a frothing jihadist.

I'm more concered with the deliberate and sometimes explicit policies for the genocide of the American Indians in the 1800's and before. Also, Smallpox had no more trouble spreading through Canada (particularly Ontario/Quebec) than it did through New England or the American mid-west.Really, this is all irrelevant to the actual thread topic. I was merely responding to bush_cheney's usual trolling.

uh huh.... http://history.state.../IndianTreaties Like this right? It only took 10 years for the US to solve their Indian problem in the American south. Just put guns in their faces and move them!

Well murdering/relocating the natives is certainly a good way to makes sure they don't cause any problems later. Nobody is arguing against that!

There are about 1.2M Indians or whatever you want to call them in Canada. Considering Canada's population is about 1/10th the size of the United States', it seems that Andrew Jackson and pals were rather efficient in eliminating aboriginals in their territories. Let's ask the ones the American Army 'looked after' in the 1800's to get a fair comparison, okay?