Moonbox

If you want to pretend that EI isn't frauded on a regular basis by thousands and thousands, by all means. My spouses brother works in landscaping 4-5 months a year and then collects EI in the remainder. I have two friends working together for a general contractor in the summer and then working for cash the rest of the year while collecting EI. It's happening, it's easy to get away with, and small employers will do it because it's cheap and nobody monitors it well. You can plug your ears, close your eyes, yell loudly and insist it doesnt, but you're only fooling yourself. I'm unfortunately not going to be able to give you names because these sorts of things aren't generally published...for obvious reasons. The GST has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. I don't have the numbers but I suspect it will dwindle fast over the next little while. Even so, if we have so much money that we're going to be extending EI to people who've only worked 9 weeks in the last YEAR, then EI is over funded and I'm being taxed to much (or the debt's not being paid down fast enough). Again, let's reform EI, but NOT by lowering the number of hours required annually to qualify. I'm 100% with you there. I think some civil and cooperative discussion on the matter could do us some good. I don't think Ignatieff has a good solution, but I think something could be done to help the people you describe.

If they bail out DB pensions I'll probably kill myself. Kidding...sort of...

Depends on the pension. The only thing is that most union pensioners over 20 years would take WAY more than what they put in. Current pension contributers (current employees and company contributions) would make up the shortfall. This is what you see with the car companies. In the case of GM, if the company fails pensioners lose like 50% of their benefits because nobody else will be putting money into the plan. They'll get what they put in, but they'll still cry that they don't get what they expected and signed for while they were working, even though it's largely the pensions that caused the company to fail in the first place.

Well we agree on that in principle, but unfortunately the system IS rampantly abused in this way. My spouse's brother abuses the system as does everyone else in his landscaping company and some dubious friends I have working for 'contractors' do the same thing. I know those are just testimonials but EVERYONE knows people like this. He IS being a bit deceptive on the issue. Regardless, more money spent means more taxes paid. Either we pay higher taxes or we pay taxes longer, that's where the money comes from. Boeing workers are irrelevant to our argument. They're already working the better part of a year. I understand paying their benefits short term. In this I agree with you. Lowering the hours required for eligibility is not the answer though. If you've been employed full time for years and years and only recently have had problems, EI should be there for you. It should not, on the other hand, be there for someone who's been out of work for a year or 75% of the year etc. It was never designed to be. There are better ways of reforming EI, even temporary measures, than just blanket-reducing the number of required hours work.

Ignatieff doesn't have anything to do with what happened back then. Having said that, his opening of the coffers to allow easier access to EI money is a continuation of previous Liberal policy in this area that has served the party well in the areas I mentioned previously. I know EI isn't the ONLY reason people vote for a party, but people's votes will generally follow the money. As the Liberals were allowing unfair advantages to the Maritimes on federal transfer payments, along with MUCH easier EI qualifications, it's no surprise that they have dominated in these areas recently.

I don't think you understand how pension funds work. The money you put in is only a FRACTION of what you take out after retirement and it depends on further funding from current workers. I'm being simplistic but basically the assumption is that when you retire, inflation and wages from current employees and their contributions are what's going to support and supplement what you put in. There's a reason the government encourages you to save in an RSP and TFSA. MOST companies can't afford to support you in retirement. Companies like GM etc have a pension plan FAR FAR FAR more generous than what the average manufacturing worker would get and it was the consumers that bore the brunt of the cost. Consumers have since refused to continue supporting GM pensioners who were paid FAR too much while they were working in the first place, so it's an unfortunate case of "what goes around comes around". The collective greed and stupidity of the union members at large is what caused this. Shareholders and CEO's aren't running off with pension money. The money is still there, it's just what pensioners contributed is A LOT less than what they want to take out. The pension plans themselves are protected. The future contributions of the company are what's not. My heart is breaking......

He's just saying that the Liberals do very well in areas where unemployment is high and that's mainly because Liberal governments have been very 'liberal' with EI in places like the maritimes.

Temporary could mean for the next 3 years. Temporary could change to perpetual. Neither you nor I really know at this point. What I really need to know, if you can explain it to me, is how the recession makes it so we need to qualify people who don't regularly work in the first place. Come on Jdobbin. Someone who only worked 9 weeks in the last 52 can't make the case that the recession that hit less 7 months ago caused them to be unemployed. That means they were only employed 9/21 weeks before the recession hit which hints they weren't working much before that either. I'm wondering if you're confused (or maybe I am) about the EI rules. According to Service Canada, you are eligible for EI if you've been laid off for 7 days and if you have worked for the qualifying period. The 19-50 weeks eligibility is how long you can draw on EI before it expires. Changing THAT would help laid off manufacturers (I'm not suggesting it btw) but changing the qualifying period (how long you're required to have worked in the last 52 weeks) doesn't make EI faster or more responsive. What Ignatieff is saying doesn't make sense. I long ago stopped paying attention to what Harper says about his opponents policies. EI reforms (temporary or not) WILL cost a lot of money, which WILL require tax dollars to pay off. I'm going by what IGNATIEFF is saying and I can't fathom the logic that, because of the recession, he wants to extend EI to people who weren't (or were barely) working BEFORE the recession in the first place. It doesn't make sense and it appears to be a pander for far left votes. Please explain if I'm misunderstanding here. And once again you and I generally agree on what we want to see done...

"I'm not looking for a fight," Ignatieff said. "I just know, in my guts, as I go across the country, that we have an EI system that is not purpose-built for the most serious economic crisis since 1945, and we have to fix it and we have to fix it now with a temporary eligibility standard of 360 hours." Ottawa Citizen Seems your man said exactly 9 weeks of full time work would render you eligible. He says temporary, but whatever that means is questionable. I don't know why we'd want to pay EI for the chronically unemployed. I mean, I have no problem paying EI for laid off GM and auto-parts workers over the last little while, but not someone who has only worked 2 months in the last YEAR. The crisis only started hitting in Septemberish. His solution doesn't even make sense. Extending EI eligibility under the pretense that it's for people that lost their jobs during the crisis is nothing but a pander for NDP votes and you know it. Harper is not my leader. I chose him after Martin in 2006 amidst sponsorship scandals and I chose him over Dion pretty much entirely because I thought the Green Shift was a terrible idea. I'd chose Ignatieff if I thought he'd reduce spending and not tax me extra for social programs and our disgusting EI system. I'm a right wing voter, sure, but I'll take whatever brand I can get. Harper has totally dissapointed and I'd be glad to see him go. If Ignatieff can do better, bring him on. I just have my doubts.

Myata I missed you. Have you been away? Maybe I'm just not paying attention. Anyways, if Harper knows what's good for him, HE WILL get himself out of power. I was saying he should have bailed and left the mess to the Liberals back in December, so that he could blame THEM instead of the other way around for the world financial meltdown. Oh well.

The Senate ones didn't. Those were the big ones that people really cared and talked about. I apologize. That was before I ever really started posting here and it still has nothing to do with anything past October 2008. If they're still paying off election debt from 7 months ago I'd say they're not in amazing shape, especially compared to the CPC. As for their policy and whatnot, at least we agree on that. What? He'll make a confidence motion over NOT making EI an even bigger welfare than it already is? I would love to see where you stand on that. As a huge critic of fiscal responsibility, it would be interesting to see where you stand on allowing Canadians to work for 9 out of 52 weeks a year and collect the better part of a year's salary. I'd assume you'd be against it seeing how critical you are of unneccessary spending, but then I also doubt you'd actually criticize your own religion party allegiances.

No, I think people on the right understood that it wasn't a really practical time to start reforming. As things turned out, like I said, there were hardly any appointments at all until after the last election and only then when the coalition threatened and Conservative poll numbers started to sink. And I said that Harper wouldn't call an election so soon because it would be political suicide. As it stands, May has come, there's been no election, the LPC is still broke and the Liberals are still mixed up over what they're supposed to be about. Their increase in the polls is more a matter of the CPC leading through a recession, which I said would happen, because no part does well during a run of economic crap. But shouldn't they be asking if people want a CPC that acts like Liberals or a Liberal Party making NDP-style promises. EI proposal?

Find me someone who voted based on that issue and who feels betrayed. That's kind of what you said but not exactly. You said he would call an election before the Liberals reorganized. The Liberals are still broke and still don't know what they're all about. They're still a mess, and there's been NO election. Why? Because everyone knew it would be political suicide to call another election deep in an early financial crisis. He abandoned them, sure, but I wonder how much the fact that the Liberals are close to getting their hands back on the bureaucracy. He didn't start making Senate appointments etc until December, when the coalition was threatening.

If your company laid you off, then you should have been working more than 360 hours previously anyways. If you're going to collect EI, it should be from long and gainful employment being lost. It's there to ensure that you can meet your obligations and not lose your house and car while you look for new work. By reducing the requirement to 360 hours, all you do is turn it into more expensive welfare, but one that's even easier to abuse. Well we should all quit work then so we don't over-burden the health care system right? - PS...I hope you're joking

I'm curious as to how Ignatieff reconciles wanting to reduce spending and be more responsible fiscally, and allowing people to work 9 weeks a year and mooch for the next 43.

I don't expect people to be totally informed. With that said, millions of voters go to the polls without even reading a newspaper on occasion. When popular opinion is successfully swayed by things like what sort of mustard you put on your hot dog, I question the intelligence of the average popular opinion holder. The reason politicians get away with so much crap is because nobody cares and nobody notices or understands. When you make important decisions and form strong convictions without any knowledge to base them on, that IS stupid. Nevermind the debate as to whether or not it's worth getting informed or worth voting at all. It's kind of like literring. Multiply that one vote/uninformed decision and multiply it by millions and it does become a problem. It's one of the biggest reasons the rich are so able to maintain the status quo and get away with everything they do. People are just too dumb/apathetic to care.

I think handing the Liberals their worst defeat in history would could as a success for him. Harper was defined to Canadians years ago by Liberal attack ads and his response to them. At this point nothing he can't reverse this. Nobody cares who the attacker is. You clearly didn't care when you were voting for Paul Martin years ago. As for the polls, they're not as easy to interpret as you think.

All we can safely say is that it certainly wasn't a priority of his in the minority government. Given how imminent his defeat is getting, I think he's trying to even out the senate and the bureaucracy as much as possible before the Libs get their hands on them again. It's VERY understandable. No. You said Harper was going to call another election before spring. Don't try to weasel your way out of it. There was no qualification that it had to be against Dion, explicit or implied. We discussed this at length. The reforms, ESPECIALLY Senate reforms, would have been EXTREMELY difficult to put forward. They bordered on Constitutional Reform. It would be impossible in a minority. Again though, it's not like you care. You don't even want the reforms. You just want to whine and b**** about anything and everything you can when it comes to Harper.

So it's ignorance. As far as I'm concerned, ignorance is a type of stupidity. The people you're talking about usually have no problems developing strong opinions about the politics in question, but with almost zero knowledge on the subject, what can you call them but stupid? Who votes without knowing or understanding the issues? Yes. I was about to say...lol

Bingo

Keepitsimple I think your praise of Harper is a little over zealous. He overspent on every budget and heavily too. This was while the economy was performing well. He's alienated the majority of Canadians to the point that until he steps down or gets defeated, we'll be be running expensive and ineffective minority governments. He's a pandering buffoon just like he promised he wouldn't be. The only reason I've stuck with him is that a Dion Liberal government wouldn't have fixed his mistakes and would have only made them worse. I pray for the return of Chretien-era fiscal policy. If that comes from a new CPC leader or from Ignatieff, I don't care. I'll take it either way. So far neither looks likely to me.

I think the banks went belly-up for over leveraging bad mortgages. I think AIG went belly-up for overextending with credit-default swaps. They are inter-related anyways so maybe I over-simplified. Sorry. I apologize for assuming you know nothing of economics and I was obviously wrong, but the value of the economy is nonetheless NOT going down 90%. We saw US household wealth drop like 18%, which is equal to 85+% of the value of the NYSE, and we are probably seeing a full year's worth of GDP wiped off the balance sheets, but the economy is not going to be worth 50% less in the end and especially not 80-90%. I think 1970's level inflation is a possibility over upcoming years but the doom and gloom scenario the opening post presented is just silly.

Totally agree. It's too bad there are so many people out there that do. This is why FOX news is actually taken seriously in the states. Sadly the only remedy is to make people smarter. I'll hold my breath for that one.

The attack ads served to drive Liberal numbers lower than ever last election. No, they didn't give the Tories a majority, but that's only because Harper totally goofed up in Quebec. What's particularly amusing about your analysis of things, however, is how the Chretien/Martin Liberals set the precedent for juvenile attack ads like the ones we're seeing lately. They framed Harper as an anti-abortion and anti-gay crusader with the secret agenda of wanting to make Canada a colony of the USA. He's never recovered from this. Of course, this was all fine and dandy when the Liberals were doing it. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but I am once again highlighting how completely screwed up your perception of things are and how selective your memory is when you post. It's hard to take you seriously anymore. It feels more like I'm arguing against your religion rather than politics with you.

Yes...let's play politics Kindergarten style... Please. Respect goes both ways, and it's earned. Stephen Harper lived through 2 elections through which the Liberals basically said he was an evil anti-abortion, anti-gay crusader with a 'secret agenda' to turn Canada in to George Bush land. If politicians were going to all agree to be perfectly honest, not smear each other and get along quietly, that would be one thing, but it's not politics. We agree on that at least.