Ignatieff on EI and Taxes

punked · April 16, 2009

Dobbin was talking about th deficit.

Either way they have shown no leadership on this issue. The only party fighting for it has been the NDP now the Liberals are all of a sudden going to fix it? F that.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

You know the game played by Chretien and martin to advance their socialist agenda, and further the liberals policy of talking more control from the provinces.
Step 1 Cut federal transfers and program funding.

That is socialist?

Step 2 as the provinces wither and are unable to support the programs, step back in and offer limited one off funds.

The provinces used that time to cut their taxes or pass on the costs to the municipalities.

Step 3 add strings to the funds that remove the provincial autonomy from the program

Federal transfers often come with strings that are agreed to by the provinces. Don't want those strings, refuse the transfers. Even Alberta accepts $4 billion in transfers.

Step 4 set up a federal arm to manage provincial jurisdiction from a central location in Ontario or Quebec

You means like Western Diversification based in the west?

Again they didn't solve problems they just created new ones and more regional divides while concentrating power.

There is a lot of cries of hands off but at the same time recognition that things like environment and health don't stop at provincial borders.

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Either way they have shown no leadership on this issue. The only party fighting for it has been the NDP now the Liberals are all of a sudden going to fix it? F that.

Your right the liberals are not able to fix it.

You work from the left I will work from the right and between us we will squeeze the liberals out of existance in this country.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

The only party fighting for it has been the NDP now the Liberals are all of a sudden going to fix it? F that.

On the deficit or EI?

punked · April 16, 2009

On the deficit or EI?

EI

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

That is socialist?
The provinces used that time to cut their taxes or pass on the costs to the municipalities.

Federal transfers often come with strings that are agreed to by the provinces. Don't want those strings, refuse the transfers. Even Alberta accepts $4 billion in transfers.

You means like Western Diversification based in the west?

There is a lot of cries of hands off but at the same time recognition that things like environment and health don't stop at provincial borders.

Socialism is concentrating power (political and economical) Into a central power figure or government to redistribute wealth to those they deem fit.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

EI

I agree that the Liberals have done a poor job on EI. They used the surpluses for deficit fighting and cut benefits. The only luck they had was the economy was starting to do better so there was not a hue and cry with low unemployment for many of those years.

The NDP were the only ones advocating for EI changes although I don't if we can go back to supporting such seasonal unemployment as we once did. There has to be a medium to all this.

The question is: Can the NDP translate their policy into a winning strategy to form government? I don't think so. The NDP is too till cavalier on spending. They need to take a lesson from their provincial cousins on the subject which they seem loath to do.

The Liberals really cut the support of EI. The question is whether Ignatieff has the right policy idea for EI now. Some analysts like what they see. I'd like to know more as the policy is fleshed out.

jdobbin · April 16, 2009

Socialism is concentrating power (political and economical) Into a central power figure or government to redistribute wealth to those they deem fit.

Which is what the Alberta government does.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

This is not the issue you should run on because you broke the system.

I didn't do anything. I'm not running either. I happen to agree with the majority of Liberal policies, if not all of them (the gun registry), and I don't really have an opinion on EI. What I do know is: 1) the supreme court ruled that using EI funds was not against the law (whether it's wrong or not is a matter of opinion) and 2) the Liberals put up is a position of great prosperity, eliminated the deficit, and made it possible for us to balance the budget for many years in a row. Now, granted, they did do damage to the military and health care through that, but the Liberals also started the process of repairing both in the late years of their governance.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Which is what the Alberta government does.

Like getting rid of RHAs for example.

punked · April 16, 2009

I agree that the Liberals have done a poor job on EI. They used the surpluses for deficit fighting and cut benefits. The only luck they had was the economy was starting to do better so there was not a hue and cry with low unemployment for many of those years.
The NDP were the only ones advocating for EI changes although I don't if we can go back to supporting such seasonal unemployment as we once did. There has to be a medium to all this.

The question is: Can the NDP translate their policy into a winning strategy to form government? I don't think so. The NDP is too till cavalier on spending. They need to take a lesson from their provincial cousins on the subject which they seem loath to do.

The Liberals really cut the support of EI. The question is whether Ignatieff has the right policy idea for EI now. Some analysts like what they see. I'd like to know more as the policy is fleshed out.

I think if the Liberals choose to run on this in anyway they get wiped off the map. The NDP will hold the lefties on these issues in that they have had and have fought for those ideals for a long time. The Cons will hold the right because they didn't get their hands dirty making all the cuts but now they are made they can say it is fine the way it is. There is no middle on this issue.

Regardless of if we can support the seasonal unemployment we have to remember their was a 50 billion dollar surplus in the EI account before the Liberals took it all. That is a lot of money unspent so I think we can provide the right type of benefits to the unemployed until they get back to work. Here is where the Liberals have a poor voting record even recently.

punked · April 16, 2009

I didn't do anything. I'm not running either. I happen to agree with the majority of Liberal policies, if not all of them (the gun registry), and I don't really have an opinion on EI. What I do know is: 1) the supreme court ruled that using EI funds was not against the law (whether it's wrong or not is a matter of opinion) and 2) the Liberals put up is a position of great prosperity, eliminated the deficit, and made it possible for us to balance the budget for many years in a row. Now, granted, they did do damage to the military and health care through that, but the Liberals also started the process of repairing both in the late years of their governance.

At the cost of unemployed. They actually took from the worse off to balance the budget. Great policy. They don't have a record to run on when it comes to EI they left workers out in the cold.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

They don't have a record to run on when it comes to EI they left workers out in the cold.

That's the thing. This is a new leader, with a new team, and they don't need a record to run on. This is supposed to be a fresh start.

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Which is what the Alberta government does.

The Alberta Progessives have ceased to be anything more then that they have left all forms of Conservatism. Stelmach's days are numbered, and the best before date is stamped on his forehead.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Stelmach's days are numbered, and the best before date is stamped on his forehead.

Let's hope so, because if not, you might have to remove your tag line about your province.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

That's the thing. This is a new leader, with a new team, and they don't need a record to run on. This is supposed to be a fresh start.

Just remeber it was the liberals who took 54 billion dollars from the workers of this country when they raided the EI surplus. Mulroony's biggest mistake in 88' when he changed EI was not removing its funds from the Governments General revenues and setting it up as a crown croporation.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Alta4ever

punked · April 16, 2009

That's the thing. This is a new leader, with a new team, and they don't need a record to run on. This is supposed to be a fresh start.

HE VOTED AGAINST EI REFORM SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THE NDP WAS TRYING TO FIX IT! Now it is his issue? Now he is the new leader? Fresh start from his own record. Pfffffftttttttt f that.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

HE VOTED AGAINST EI REFORM SEVERAL TIMES WHEN THE NDP WAS TRYING TO FIX IT!

Voting for those reforms would have triggered an election, correct?

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

Let's hope so, because if not, you might have to remove your tag line about your province.

The average person in Alberta is still a conservative and beleives in common sense. Stelmach was given the benefit of the doubt now it is time to remove the rot from our government. Time to install anthor small c conservative government, hopefully WAP can get its act together.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Alta4ever

Smallc · April 16, 2009

Just remember it was the liberals who stole 54 billion dollars from the workers of this country when they raided the EI surplus.

That's been proven false in a court of law. To say it was theft is an outright lie and is really slander.

punked · April 16, 2009

Voting for those reforms would have triggered an election, correct?

I don't think voting yes to something can trigger an election.

Smallc · April 16, 2009

I don't think voting yes to something can trigger an election.

It did in 2005, but I may be wrong this time (although, the EI bill would have to be a money bill, which is automatically a confidence bill, so unless it was a bill that did nothing, then it would have forced an election). One important things to note: What Ignatieff wants to do with EI may not be the same thing that Layton wants to do with EI.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Smallc

punked · April 16, 2009

It did in 2005, but I may be wrong this time (although, the EI bill would have to be a money bill, which is automatically a confidence bill, so unless it was a bill that did nothing, then it would have forced an election). One important things to note: What Ignatieff wants to do with EI may not be the same thing that Layton wants to do with EI.

In 2005 it was a motion of no confidence. However the EI bills while money bills I think can pass with out government failing.

The second part of your post I will address with this Godin put forward a large bill which was killed. So he decided to break it up into a bunch of smaller bills thinking they may have a chance to pass. Anything Ignatieff suggests I can guarantee has already been put forward by Godin and the Liberals killed it both in the larger bill and on its own in the smaller bills. The party is going to look stuipd suggesting stuff almost all of them have voted against repeatably.

Alta4ever · April 16, 2009

That's been proven false in a court of law. To say it was theft is an outright lie and is really slander.

Liberals and the EI scam
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against the federal Liberal party to the tune of $54.1 billion taken from employment insurance (EI) funds without proper cabinet orders in 2002, 2003, and 2005.

The Liberals lied to Canadians for years and said they had a huge surplus. By doing so, they were reelected to power for 13 years. Remove the $54.1 billion from the surplus and you will soon see what a terrible job they did running the country.

http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/Art....aspx?e=1405935

In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled EI premiums were inappropriately collected between 2002, 2003, and 2005. That's when the Liberal cabinet set EI rates directly without the authorization from Parliament and the employment insurance commission, a violation of the principle of no taxation without representation.
"This means that employment insurance premiums were collected unlawfully, without the necessary legislative authorization," Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the decision.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1211?hub=Canada

Supreme court of Canada Decision http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008.../2008scc68.html

They collected premiums that were unlawfully collected.

Have you been refunded, I haven't.