Moonbox

Unfortunately we have a lot of politicians who'd rather blow that money on EI.

It's nothing but bluster. If Ignatieff was ready to do ANYTHING he would have made demands of substance. He would have given concrete demands on what actually needed to be DONE to allow the government to continue. All he did was back down (again) and try and make a show of it. Theoretically he has all the power he needs to halt whatever wrongs Harper is doing. Theoretically if he was upset with the Harper government and was serious about doing things differently, he wouldn't continue to rant against Harper's government while meekly voting WITH it.

EI is SUPPOSED to TEMPORARILY support long time contributors when they unfortunately lose work. It was NEVER meant to be used as long-term income replacement for people who don't/can't find long term work. I am HAPPY to support someone who's PROVEN he works the vast majority of the year (or has worked full time for years and years) but I honestly care little for those who can't show that sort of work history. Listen carefully, because I've already said it: People who are finding themselves out of work (ie a GM employee) and who have contributed long term MUST be helped and there are various ways I can think of doing this. Like I said, we can make changes to help the people who are hurting BECAUSE of the recession, but we don't have to by extension make it easier for people who didn't work much in the first place and are consistent moochers who won't be working full time anyways. You're right in that employers to some extent are encouraged to hire only part time, but there are various ways to change this that DO NOT include giving EI freely to anyone who asks regardless of whether they should be getting it.

Except Ignatieff hasn't forced anything. All he asked for was more information. That's hardly a tough ultimatum. Harper's already responded and said, "okay sure". This is about as bold as demanding the 'updates' when Ignatieff voted to pass Harper's budget. He's basically backing down but posturing as if he's playing tough. What would you call Ignatieff? Ignatieff the Blow-Hard? Ignatieff the Bluffer? Ignatieff the Unclear or Transient?

Sorry, but did my rhetoric cause confusion? I should have said, "Almost" no impact. SOMEONE LIKES TO EXAGGERATE!!!! Maybe a little. Nothing like you're saying. Many of his conservative principles (which for the record I don't agree with) have totally been ignored while he's governed.

Thanks for your input benny, but there's nothing wrong with meeting in private.

Regional disparity is a problem but it's not one of Harper's creation. It's a travesty that you can get EI after working only 360 hours a year ANYWHERE in this country. That should NEVER have become permanent policy and it's disgusting that it is. The solution is NOT to allow it everywhere but rather entirely rewrite the qualification system. If, for example, you're hit with a recession that temporarily lowers employment numbers in general, the system can be amended to extend benefits for part of the duration and make allowances for workers who get hired and laid off in succession, providing that they had strong employment history prior. Someone who worked for years and years at GM, for example, is likely going to have trouble finding work right now and will likely need help retraining and finding new permanent work. I see no problem making amendments for THAT sort of person. For those who have little to no extended employment history, however, including the many that work for the summer and then get laid off and work under the table in the winter (ie my brother in law), their EI benefits should be taken away and they can find out what it means to actually work a whole year. They should have a proven history of working the vast majority of the year and if they don't then they can suck their own asses.

Hey no argument there. There are just better ways to do it than just a blanket reduction in required working hours. There are people who deserve it, and there are ways of giving it to them, without making it easy for people who don't deserve it to get it.

EI can be changed to help people who are in and out of work temporarily, but changing the minimum to 360 hours is not a good way to do it. It's too arbitrary and it will be too easy to abuse. EI already gets abused significantly as is. Harper will not go with the 360 hour minimum as proposed by Ignatieff, and I doubt Ignatieff would call an election over it either, because it would be an easy issue for Harper to attack him on. There will likely be a compromise on the issue.

I hope they don't and doubt it but I wouldn't be really surprised if they did. EI reforms -- sure. EI reforms as proposed by Ignatieff -- PLEASE no.

Haha. Wouldn't that be funny? Or not....but it would destroy the little credibility Harper has left.

His conditions for allowing parliament to proceed: 1. Give more details of EI reform proposals 2. Give more details of stimulus spending 3. Give more details of how to balance the budget in the future 4. Give more details of how to fix the isotope shortage After all media speculation, nothing's changed. I think he's being smart in that the recession still has a lot of legs and it's probably better to wait than to force another election so soon, but it would have been interesting to see the Liberals call Layton's bluff and pound him at the polls.

Harper's social conservatism has had absolutely zero impact on his governing. It was also blown out of proportion by negative Liberal advertising in 2004-2006. As for Ignatieff, he hasn't done much or said much of anything. Nobody has ANY idea what his plans are.

It would be nice to see what sort of info they tested.

Meeting with the most lobbyists could simply be because the most lobbyists ask to speak to her and a lot of ministers don't get any requests to meet. Another thing we've failed to determine is if she meets with MORE or fewer lobbyists than ministers of previous governments.

Really dumb on my part to not thought of that. The DOW is still looking ugly compared to years ago.

He's talking about how the Liberals got the vast majority of their funding from large corporations...presumably the same corporations who lobby the government. Ever wonder why the tax payers are getting screwed in the US over the auto bailout in favor of UAW pensions? Take a look at who Obama's biggest campaign contributor was. I'll give you three guesses.

Ooh. Intelligent.

He was invited. In hindsight it was a mistake, but I imagine he thought even Fox News would have the class and intelligence not to try and get a foreign leader to publicly denounce the US president and his policies with hack questions. It was Chris Wallace too, who's considerably less hack than a lot of the others. Even I was surprised by how hard he tried to corner Harper into saying something stupid.

When the dangers of terrorist fist-pumps, dijon mustard and beer-pong propel FNC to the top of the charts, it's more a testament to the stupidity and ignorance of the viewers than anything else.

It was an ugly interview and I think it further hurt the credibility of Fox News. They all but tried to get Harper to denounce Obama, social spending etc and he fortunately didn't say anything stupid. God Fox News is retarded.

Your CPP contributions are supporting current pensioners. My CPP contributions (I'm not a baby boomer) will be supporting the baby boomer's pensions. Forgive my ignorance, but could someone explain what the 1990 changes were that will fix CPP contribution problems when the boomers retire? I don't know anything about it sorry

I've been watching the TSX a lot recently and I'm dumbfounded by the gains we've seen since February. The index is trading at almost the same levels as Summer 2008 and amidst a severe recession no less. I'm wondering what on earth is encouraging this growth other than what I perceive to be huge manipulations of the system. It's been easy to make money investing since November, but are things about to come crapping back down? Are the financial write-offs and reduced revenue genuinely perceived to be only short-term? Is there REAL indication that we'll be back to normal within a year or so? Personally, I think a lot of savvy and less than scrupulous investors are banking off of unjustified optimism with the average investor.

Good idea, except the dynamics of most kidnappings are that the people attempting the rescue have no clue at all where the kidnapped person may be.

Regardless of what you guys think, the CPP needs needs needs changes. The baby boomers are already retiring and there is not a chance in hell that my generation will be able to support them. The shortfall will be enormous. I don't know what can be done but any of the boomers who DIDN'T put money into an RRSP are going to be screwed for short-sightedness or for being poor.