err
-
Posts
884 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by err
-
-
Protecting Pensions
- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.
- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions
I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.
Would this mean that government taxes would be paid after pension payments in the case of bankruptcy?
Currently, the employees (and their pension plans) have the last dibs on whatever finances there are to divide up when a company has gone bankrupt. The order of priority is as follows: Taxes first, banks ando other lenders second, then suppliers, and lastly, the employees. So often there is nothing left for severence pay, back-owed wages, and their pensions.
There is a compelling argument that banks are in the business of loaning money, and have to take some of the risks associated with that trade. The employees are not in the lending business.. All their eggs are usually in one basket... their employment, whereas the banks stand to suffer a less devastating effect should they not get all of their risked monies back.
You can argue that the employees are creditors to the company, especially when there are back-owed wages involved.
The NDP are currently pushing this on the Martin government. It is known as Bill C-281.
-
Right. And Tony Blair is a moron who couldn't see that. He led his country in with the US, for no political or economic gain and great economic and political loss just... just because.
No political gain?
No.
I'd have to agree that any political leader would risk the lives of its soldiers, spend billions of pounds, doing something that was defined as illegal by the UN for "absolutely no reason" has to be a moron....
You can't even think of a little teeny weeny reason why he'd send British troops off to their deaths ???
Not even "Better Public relations with America" ???? Isn't that a reason.???
The threat of the invisible weapons ??? They have to Be Prepared. Isn't that a reason (albeit, commonly known to be a false one prior to the illegal invasion) ???
-
You can imagine it if you wish... If she is more interested in her own skin than representing the party whose banner got her elected, then maybe she should run as an independent.True. However, I think we can be very sure that only overwhelming opposition from her constituents would have caused her to endanger her political career and standing with the NDP in order to vote no. I'd suggest the only reason she voted as she did was she didn't think she could get re-elected otherwise.If you're going to teach at a Catholic school, you better not be saying "Catholicism is wrong"... or you'll lose your job...
I think what the NDP is saying is that the party's representatives better represent the party on key issues. It's pretty simple.The NDP is basically saying that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is a racist scumbag. And since her constituents appear to not support gay marriage, well, are they likely to vote for a party which calls them moral inferiors?It is you who is falsely projecting the NDP party position.... The term "scumbags" came from you ... that terminology must come from ...well, a homophobe party...
Further, your point that her constituents "appear to not support gay marriage"... is it based on some kind of fact or did it come out of your bag of "Conservative facts"... Has a poll been taken, or should we just wait for the next election.....
-
Protecting Pensions
- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.
- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions
I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.
-
I think you should have bolded the word ACCOUNTABLE. I've read the Ontario auditor's report for a few years in a row, and the existing system is not accountable... with many of the privately run water systems not reporting their testing even once in the year (when monthly is mandatory).... Since these sources are critical to our society's well being, I think they should not be risked to the "for profit" crowd....Let's pick it apart, shall we.http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/pdfs...latformNote.pdf
1. Building the Country we Want
Implementing a permanent national infrastructure program so that accountable local governments can own and deliver clean drinking water, waste water reduction, sewage treatment and solid waste reduction strategies to their communities – and create jobs.Sounds nice, but probably a lot of pork. Aggregate demand is not a problem in Canada so we shouldn't be investing in infrastructure unless it genuinely is needed.
Officially, they aren't sure if MRI machines provide a "necessary" benefit over other non-invasive scans, and until deemed necessary, don't necessarily have to be provided by our health care system. So the premier's brother-in-law can open an MRI clinic and get all kinds of business referred to him by our health-care system. If the MRI technology becomes a "necessary" medical procedure, then there is a grey area surrounding the eligibility for payment to a private business when it should be provided by our health-care system.Strengthening the Canada Health Act to prohibit public money going to private, for-profit hospitals and responding to technological change by deeming diagnostics such as MRIs as medically necessary services, thus protecting them from privatization.I italicized that because I have no idea what this means practically. If there's "technological change" they're going to deem the procedure "necessary"? So how does that, in any way, lower waiting times for an MRI in, say Saskatchewan, where one must wait 6 months before a patient can use an MRI machine?
-
Hey Err, I was right about the high labour and benefit costs.....and I hate to break it to you but this makes you the brainwashed one.
Check this link for why you're stupid.
The jobs bank was established during 1984 labor contract talks between the UAW and the Big Three. The union, still reeling from the loss of 500,000 jobs during the recession of the late 1970s and early 1980s, was determined to protect those who were left. Detroit automakers were eager to win union support to boost productivity through increased automation and more production flexibility.The result was a plan to guarantee pay and benefits for union members whose jobs fell victim to technological progress or plant restructurings. In most cases, workers end up in the jobs bank only after they have exhausted their government unemployment benefits, which are also supplemented by the companies through a related program. In some cases, workers go directly into the program and the benefits can last until they are eligible to retire or return to the factory floor.
"Labor wants the (jobs bank) because they want protection for their members," Zullo said. But he added that the jobs bank was also designed to help the companies by ensuring that skilled workers did not take their talents elsewhere."Companies invest in training," he said. "It protects that investment."
The investment only makes sense when viewed from a long-term perspective, a vantage point Wall Street is not known to favor.
Montgomery, I'll agree that the deal that the Big 3 made with the UAW has resulted in a high labour cost for them relative to the amount of income they have now. However, the low income they are currently enjoying is a result of greed and stupidity of the Big 3 and the SUVs. All their eggs in one basket...
Thankfully, their stupidity has not thrown all these workers out of their wages, which consequently would have devasated many of their lives. Thankfully, the UAW had the foresight to put together a deal that would protect the workers.
The Big 3 will probably bounce back from their financial predicament by manufacturing practical vehicles for our times....
-
Right. And Tony Blair is a moron who couldn't see that. He led his country in with the US, for no political or economic gain and great economic and political loss just... just because.
No political gain?
Bush's Lewinsky-wannabe had no political gain in mind ???
Not even economic gain for British Petroleum ???
-
I guess you're smarter than the American intelligence community who say that he wasn't....Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US invasion. Some of them could very well be Iraqis who didn't like their country being invaded.
Well, where do you think they were born, Timmins, Ontario ??? It is probably safe to assume that the individuals in question are not French Canadian, African American, Irish Canadian, or Native Americans... Use your loaf... they're probably Arabs Montgomery.... and more than likely Iraqi born....1) The article says nothing about the Canadians being born in Iraq. Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the liberation began.
In Iraq... you must be thinking about another war... Iraq is about OIL.2) Perhaps Chretien can use some of that blood money he got from Saddam to pay for paralyzed terrorists who are trying to kill the people fighting for freedom and democracy.
No Montgomery, I think people have formed a strong opinion of you and your views already, and that's not exactly it....Or maybe Paul Martin can use that $1 million that Saddam invested in one PMPM's companies. ...(Balance of text removed to spare viewers injesting excessive stupidity)
I don't want people to think that I am a greedy moneymonger who despises moral values.
-
Stupid me,and I thought it was the high labour and benefit costs.
Don't be hard on yourself. You couldn't help it, being brainwashed with all of that Conservative ideology.....
-
Yes, it should be okay to insult women, or anyone else. It's called freedom of speech and opinon.Most people have more important things to worry about then whether someone is saying bad things about their gender or ethnic group somewhere.Rape is, by and large, an impulse crime largely driven by alcohol or drugs, and is largely physically harmless to the victim (in terms of other physically violent crime).
I guess these quotes show some of the things that you and I differ on in opinion. I know that my opinion is right in line with the NDP's on equality, and it appears diametrically opposed to yours. Can we infer the Conservative/Reform position on women or equality based on your quotes.
-
As such, her vote is, in the party's eyes, similar to taking the side of an outspoken racist. Thus, it is simple to see why she was rejected by the party....
And the NDP will likely be rejected by the voters of that riding next election. Their rigid, absolutist ideology which regards anyone who doeesn't support it as an evil heretic insults too many people. For what they're saying is everyone who doesn't wholehearetedly support homosexual rights is a racist, and since she clearly voted only because of the strong wishes of her constituents, the NDP is saying her constituents are racists.
There are a few lines that the party has to draw. The NDP has a strong emphasis on equality, and one of the recent "hot" issues with all parties has been the "gay marriage" issue. The party expects its MPs to agree with the principles of the party. The party doesn't expect compliance on all issues, but certainly on the key issues of equality. Similarly you would expect the Catholic School Board to only keep teachers who do not contradict the principles of Catholicism, but the school board probably doesn care strongly about the teacher's opinion of economic theory.
Here, again, I suggest that your are a bit naive about politics. While in theory, politicians do the bidding of their constituents, that is not the reality of it. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any difference between the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives in any given riding... They would be doing as their constituents bid.... But most of us know that is not the way it works.The new candidate, btw, is a just-out-of school zealot with no life experience or qualifications (but good NDP political connections), who can be counted on voting as she is told, no matter what her constituents think.Most people vote for the party they feel will give them the best reward, whatever the individual thinks that reward to be. They usually vote for the party, not the person. There are outstanding cases where the converse is true.
And when these people vote for their favourite party, it is usually based on the party platform, again, not the person....
Argus, how many times has your local MP called you (or anyone you know) and ask you what your opinion is... (don't bother answering, because we all know the answer)...
The concept of 'doing their constituents' bidding is that they tow the party line, doing as outlined in the party's election platform. As such, I would say that Ms. Desjarlais did not vote as her constituents wished because she did different from what was promised in the election platform that got her elected to the position of MP. Thus, the NDP party did as the constituents bid by selecting a candidate who will faithfully represent the party.
-
NDP Platform 2004: NDP Platform 2004
The NDP's 8 Commitments: The NDPs 8 Commitments
You'll probably not see a platform for the upcoming election until it is called. Too many times, the NDP published their platform early, only to have the Liberals borrow ideas from it...
-
More people are ruined because they don't/didn't have a union to protect them.
Excellent Err,
That explains why Toyota is thriving and the Big 3 are failing.
The Big 3 went for those Stupud Useless Vehicles that had no pollution or economy conscience in their design and marketing... The big 3 deserve what they get for that Stupid Useless Venture. Now maybe they'll put some forethought into making, marketing, and promoting more economic vehicles to run...
It is a shame for all of the people who will lose their jobs over the foolishness of the auto companies, which incidentally, was promoted by the Whitehouse....
SUVs cost less to produce, and could sell for more money than normal cars:
The SUVs didn't have to meet many emissions standards (none if they weighed 6000 pounds or more)... Another reason they didn't cost as much to make was because they didn't have to meet the stringent safety standards that cars do... The US government has a 25% duty on imported "trucks", so there was no effective competition.... And Bush extended the amount companies could buy/lease tax free up to 100K... so they wouldn't be penalized for buying these big manly machines.... And then all it took was the advertising blitz, how only losers drove minivans... real men drove great big mombo manly trucks.... They were big and successful, so they could show their neighbours how it didnt matter that it guzzled gas... they were successful and could pay for it...
Well, the dream and bubble burst... High oil prices, combined with the Big 3's eggs all in the SUV basket.... That's why they're hurting....
You could try to blame tomorrow's weather on the unions, but probably only Conservatives like yourself would believe it....
-
You aught to go back and look up the terms you use before you use them... Because you make yourself look really ignorant when you use terms like "greedy socialists leeching off the hard-working public" and "left-wing facists"....Didn't any of these 1,866 government slugs qualify to work in any of them?Government slugs ??? Your description tells us something about you. You'd call them "slugs" just because they had a good job....
Good point, he should've called them leeches instead since they feed off their taxpaying hosts.
Exactly. They're grossly overcompensated for what they do in the LBS. They threw 1954 people out of a job, less variety and selection in govt-run stores. Typical greedy socialists leeching off the hard-working public.
I don't believe that the LCBO requires any knowledge of political allegiance of their employees.... I would imagine they hire mostly capitalists, and probably very few socialists... So are the capitalists they hire any less leeches than the socialists ??? I'm having difficulty understanding your logic... Did you go to the LCBO before you wrote this post ???
-
Do you know of Aesop's fable "Belling the Cat". I recommend that you read it... the lone mouse doesnt stand much of a chance...Any group of individuals, and any union, is perfectly capable and free to establish a collective bargaining unit, then determine terms and conditons of employment for all the workers, on virtually any worksite in Canada.In a non-union workplace, what do you think happens to individuals who walk into their bosses office to demand raises, "fairness", equality, time off, etc... A good Capatalist enterprise will make a good example of this kind of employee, to make sure the others stay in line. With a union, workers can demand unreasonable things like raises, equality, time off, and security.... that the individual most often cannot.
Do you honestly think an individual off the steet can walk into a company and demand better wages and working conditions than a union can negotiate with an employer...An individual entering the very same worksite the next day is denied tyhose exact same rights and priveleges, (to negotiate by themselves with the company) and cannot negotiate anything with their employer. They are bound by somebodys elses relationship with that employer.That is tyranny of the majority.
-
More people are ruined because they don't/didn't have a union to protect them.The Alberta Tories or any other political party don't prevent you from making a living. When a union strikes, some people are financially ruined. -
However, the majority of middle and lower income people are not business owners, and do not have the tax avoidance vehicle. Of the upper-middle and upper-income, a considerably large percentage do have the tax avoidance mechanisms at their avail...
Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it....
How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. ...The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. ...Businesses pay GST, If you collect more GST than you pay out, you pay GST! This write off dream you have is not that easy. The government has learned to stick it to businesses, just not their big business buddies! ....
Well, actually....
The net GST that a business has to remit to the Feds is money collected from customers...they're the ones "paying" it, the business just forwards it on to Ottawa.
.........
Hate to slap you in the face on this one Leader Circle, but if the shoe fits...
That being said, you certainly do not need to be wealthy to start a business and take advantage of this "tax avoidance" as it has been called. Every middle-income sole proprieter can buy things through his or her business if they can reasonably be considered business expenses...so this argument makes little sense.
Rather an unlikely scenario, isn't it.... Someone who can afford a $20Million jet probably has a business (or number of them) through which the purchase can be made.... The rich don't usually get rich by being really stupid, and not using the tax-avoidance mechanisms designed for them.Further, consider what the GST is on a $20 million Bombardier jet? If a wealthy guy buys one for his personal use, he's just kicked in $1.4 million into the public purse. Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax...FTA Lawyer
"Hard to convince this guy it's a regressive tax..." Why, because he has to pay the same rate that poor people do ???? (see above.. he would not really have to pay the tax unless he was really stupid)
-
That was when ten percent of the people of Ontario were on welfare. It was so generous, and there were so few questions asked that anyone could get it for any reason. Teenagers who had arguments with their parents simply walked into the welfare office, got a cheque, and got their own place, so they could hang out with friends, ditch school, do drugs and party like they wanted.I think that once our welfare system is restored to its former leverls so that none still have to rely on charity, it will be a wonderful thing....Yes, it was a socialist paradise. It will never happen again.
Eureka's response was correct. Welfare levels were never attractive, even when compared to minimum wage jobs. Your tale of teenage welfare drug-havens lacks any credibility, other than at Conservative policy conventions....
I can understand the poor being incensed at the benefits offered the rich, or the lack of charity of the rich... But I do have a hard time relating to the rich bemoaning the poor getting a few crumbs...
-
Just because you don't (or don't want to) listen to what other people have to say, doesn't invalidate their point of view... You just demonstrate your ignorance...Actually it was Jack ... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH......and your inability to supply relevant facts to support your arguments.....
Here's info on the NDP platform.... They didn't use very many big words, so you should be able to, with only a little bit of help, understand what it means......... or your inability to give references from the NDP platform that you say are Dipper policies and not just yours.....zzzzzz. -
I think a lot of people should get over promoting "Conservative" ideals where the general idea is taking from the poor to give to the rich..... I see it as morally wrong, and hence, will fight for what I think is right.
I think you could say that about a lot of Reform/Conservative candidates....If he were to win a seat, it would show the complete and utter stupidity of that riding!Err,
You need to get over your Conservative bashing.... you are useless to this forum and an ignorant little person. Why don't you go somewhere where you are useful, like ratemypoo.com. I am sure they could use a critic with a keen eye for shit!
And I'm glad you think that I am critic with a keen eye for your kind of posts... It is the "left bashers", and you shouldn't have much trouble finding them in this particular topic, that inspire me to respond.
You'll note that the "Liberal" supporters have a much more moderate stance, and that is why the Liberals have a much better chance of getting elected than your leader...
-
A lot of people who were born in Iraq will always think of it as home.... Similarly, if I were to move to England and get a dual citizenship, I would probably always consider Canada to be "home"....I think that when someone is defending their own country, it is not correct to call them "terrorists". For instance, if the USA were to invade Canada (because of Carolyn Parrish, certainly not for our oil), and we fought back, would we be counted as terrorsits ?????PS. Osama didn't invade Iraq... The USA did....
The Canadians fighting with the terrorists are not defending Canada--they are not "defending their own country".
They are foreigners following Al Qaeda's call to go to Iraq.
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the US invasion. Some of them could very well be Iraqis who didn't like their country being invaded.
Or how about letting Exxon and Haliburton pay for it... The war was executed by George Bush's administration for their past and future employers... Exxon and Haliburton....Let Osama pay the bills of Canadian terrorists. -
Business pays no GST.... The wealthy can portray a large percentage of their expenditures as business expenses, and hence pay no GST on it.... The middle and lower income earners do not have the convenient vehicles of tax avoidance provided to the rich.
How does it impact lower income people more than the rich? Lower income people spend proportionately more of their income on food and rent, which are GST exempt. At any rate, the thread debating the merits of the GST should be easy enough to find if one wishes to review the arguments made there.The GST is unquestionably a regressive tax, Kimmy. It impacts lower income people more than the rich: ergo it is regressive. I doubt that any looked foolish arguing that. -
From reading your posts, I've always suspected you were...Eureka,You're beginning to make me sick.
How many elections ago are we talking.. The Liberals have twice been elected since this lie was exposed...The Liberals promised to get rid of the GST certainly. Does it not seem reasonable to you that, when they found the alternative of bringing back the Manufactures' taxes, was impractical and not efficient, they changed course. That is intelligence not lying.Don't be so stupid,the Liberals won their election on the basis of the promise to get rid of the GST.
Your interpretation of voter intent is skewed.... The voter intent was not just to get rid of the GST, but the kind of government that would strip our social programs, impose a regressive tax like the GST, and sell us out the the USA. Getting rid of the Tories was the big voter intent...
-
Equality shouldn't be everybody's issue... So it should be ok to insult women because they aren't equal.. and pay them less while you're at it..... It's only a YUP issue, so we shouldn't be concerned if women, gays, and black people are regularly maligned.... Only YUPs care about that kind of insignificant stuff.... Why should a political party waste their time having a solid position on these kinds of issues....
Err, that's a Young Urban Person issue - it matters for YUPs.The NDP requires its members to support equality rights...
NDP Policy Document
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
If the net effect is that the employees aren't going to get their pensions that they contributed to for years, just because the company stuck their head in the sand an "hoped" their situation would get better, and that they would be able to meet their obligations, there is something wrong.
The banks get their payments, or the company goes under... The suppliers get their payments, or the company goes under.... Why should the employees be the "risk takers" and losers, funding the company out of their pensio fun when the banks and other suppliers won't supply them... involutarily as well. I think that is classified as robbery....