Flurry of patronage postings

[sharkman]

And during the election, I revised my prediction based on the change in circumstances. You are like Mulroney in that you leave our facts and generally lie.

To see some liberal pablum on Mulroney reminds me how they underestimated Harper, then tried to call him a radical rightwinger. Since they are so unable to take the measure of their opponents, they will continue to be surprised by reality.

[Moonbox]

Afraid appointments happened long before that coalition talk.

The Senate ones didn't. Those were the big ones that people really cared and talked about.

You see, I have had this conversation before about how Harper would never call an election before the term limit since it would be political suicide. It obviously wasn't.

I apologize. That was before I ever really started posting here and it still has nothing to do with anything past October 2008.

As for the contention that the Liberals are broke, the last report said they are close to paying off their election debt and are ready to go to an election financially. Organizationally and policy-wise they need more work and that is why Ignatieff wanted a policy platform by June.

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.

Let's go to an election then. Let's see Harper make it a confidence motion.

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.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

The Senate ones didn't. Those were the big ones that people really cared and talked about.

Uh, I don't think so. Seems to remember a few eyebrow raising judicial appointments.

I apologize. That was before I ever really started posting here and it still has nothing to do with anything past October 2008.

I was thoroughly raked over the coals for making such an an outrageous suggestion that terms limits were not really term limits and Harper had plenty of reasons he could say that Parliament was not working. I said it would not surprise me if he called the election early. I was told by many that it would be political suicide.

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.

As I said, the last I heard and that was announced during the convention was that the debt was paid or almost paid off and that money was coming in mush greater numbers and that a fully funded election campaign could be mounted.

The Tories can only spend within an election what is permitted by law. They have money to spend now on election advertising and I have always questioned whether it should be allowed. You can't do it in other jurisdictions.

In any event, the Liberals have unpaid adverts now and it has been irritating Tories who want it connected to the official Liberal spending. I keep wondering if they will go to court over it.

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.

Harper is misleading people on EI and people here are parroting his stance. The payroll tax is frozen and Harper lies that it will rise and keep rising forever. The eligibility is from 19 to 50 weeks depending on the region. That doesn't change under the Liberal proposal.

The absolute lies told by Harper and repeated here is breathtaking.

Let's go to an election on this. Harper will lose and you can get your new leader.

[Moonbox]

Harper is misleading people on EI and people here are parroting his stance. The payroll tax is frozen and Harper lies that it will rise and keep rising forever. The eligibility is from 19 to 50 weeks depending on the region. That doesn't change under the Liberal proposal.

"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.

Let's go to an election on this. Harper will lose and you can get your new leader.

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.

[jdobbin]

Seems your man said exactly 9 weeks of full time work would render you eligible. He says temporary, but whatever that means is questionable.

Temporary means temporary. The current rate is 420 hours minimum depending on the region.

The propsoal doesn't change the 19 to 50 weeks standard. It is trying to get EI to respond faster to the crisis and 360 is meant to get money to those that need it most. It isn't in perpetuity. It doesn't change the standard requirement that it can only be paid off if you laid off. It doesn't change the provision that conpanies don't use it as a crutch on an annual basis.

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 and those on the right seem content to misdirect on this policy issue. It seems they would do better to get on board an ensure measures are temporay and actually help people get back on their feet.

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.

I have no problems with EI reforms once this recession is over. I think it moves too slow and is used too much for funding programs outside of employment.

Having said that, we are in a recession and EI needs to respond faster and get people moving again.

[Moonbox]

Temporary means temporary. The current rate is 420 hours minimum depending on the region.

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.

The propsoal doesn't change the 19 to 50 weeks standard. It is trying to get EI to respond faster to the crisis and 360 is meant to get money to those that need it most. It isn't in perpetuity. It doesn't change the standard requirement that it can only be paid off if you laid off. It doesn't change the provision that conpanies don't use it as a crutch on an annual basis.

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.

Harper and those on the right seem content to misdirect on this policy issue. It seems they would do better to get on board an ensure measures are temporay and actually help people get back on their feet.

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.

I have no problems with EI reforms once this recession is over. I think it moves too slow and is used too much for funding programs outside of employment.

And once again you and I generally agree on what we want to see done...

[Oleg Bach]

Hey if you were a Roman monarch - and you knew that the people wanted to bring in a democratic government - wouldn't you hand out prime positions and jobs to every friend - brother - sister...nephew - and every loyal and ambitious henchmen you could think of? Once you entrench a huge volume of people into the senate - into postions pertaining to the private sphere...The favours will flow - EVEN if you lose the election you still have influence - perhaps more so than the legitiate next governement - This is very similar to the huge bailouts in America...shift all the money to all of your friends and to your class - then it does not matter who is in government - who ever has the money rules.

[Argus]

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.

Of course it's pandering for left wing votes. It's also pandering to young voters - who are mostly left wing anyway - and who are more likely to be working part time jobs for a wide variety of reasons. Worse, the way he's talking he considers the current rules to be less than humane. So how do you go back to being less than humane when unemployment falls? Furthermore, aren't all these rules he's complaining about, ie, different qualifications and payouts across the country depending on employment rate - in place when the Liberals were last in power too?

Edited May 15, 2009 by Argus

[Smallc]

when the Liberals were last in power too?

Remind me, what did Ignatieff have to do with any of that?

[Who's Doing What?]

Speaking for myself, I voted in the hopes of many things, but at a minimum; competent government with a measure of integrity I had not seen from previous governments. I would say that he has, at least, met that minimum requirement.

LMFAO

Just where is this integrity you speak of?

HE bribed as LIberal to cross the floor within hours of first being elected, after ripping on Stronach, and things have only gone down hill from there as far as integrity is concerned.

[Moonbox]

Remind me, what did Ignatieff have to do with any of that?

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.

[Smallc]

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.

And so I'm asking, what did Ignatieff have to do with any of that? Also, there are more than likely a multitude of factors that shape how people vote....EI is most certainly not the only reason that people in certain regions tend to vote certain ways.

[Moonbox]

And so I'm asking, what did Ignatieff have to do with any of that? Also, there are more than likely a multitude of factors that shape how people vote....EI is most certainly not the only reason that people in certain regions tend to vote certain ways.

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.

[jdobbin]

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.

My understanding is that it isn't for people who don't work regularly or for companies that use EI to rotate people in and out of the system. It is for people who have been laid off and go to work only to be laid off again after a short time. That is happening a lot right now.

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.

Is that all of the people you think this would affect?

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.

And I thought it was Harper that didn't make any sense that any changes would cause payroll taxes to go up and would be in perpetuity.

EI has to be more flexible. At the moment, Boeing worker are doing a four day work week with EI picking up the forth day. This keeps very skilled workers from losing their skills, leaving the profession and helps companies have the workers ready to go when orders increase which they always so.

We need this type of quick response and people might be taking two or three jobs in a years to try and make it through the recession. This isn't about the old ways of someone on pogey gaming the system along with the company.

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.

You see this is where you are making a basic misconception. It is about someone laid off from GM who goes to work elsewhere and is laid off again and then suddenly not eligible for EI after spending a lifetime paying into it.

And once again you and I generally agree on what we want to see done...

In this recession if people go from job to job and get laid off, they should have some respite from being cut-off. The alternatives is that people will not look for jobs while on EI for fear that in this market they will be cut-off for taking a risk on working elsewhere.

[Mr.Canada]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090510/...arper_patronage

Another broken promise from Harper to avoid the awarding of patronage appointments without some sort of oversight.

I don't think a Liberal should really be pointing fingers, do you? Patronage is one of the perks of becoming PM, who cares. Your Liberals made patronage appointments for 13 years, what's your point? Pathetic. Stephen Harper is the best option we've had for PM in many many years.

[Moonbox]

My understanding is that it isn't for people who don't work regularly or for companies that use EI to rotate people in and out of the system.

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.

And I thought it was Harper that didn't make any sense that any changes would cause payroll taxes to go up and would be in perpetuity.

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.

EI has to be more flexible. At the moment, Boeing worker are doing a four day work week with EI picking up the forth day. This keeps very skilled workers from losing their skills, leaving the profession and helps companies have the workers ready to go when orders increase which they always so.

Boeing workers are irrelevant to our argument. They're already working the better part of a year. I understand paying their benefits short term.

You see this is where you are making a basic misconception. It is about someone laid off from GM who goes to work elsewhere and is laid off again and then suddenly not eligible for EI after spending a lifetime paying into it.

In this recession if people go from job to job and get laid off, they should have some respite from being cut-off. The alternatives is that people will not look for jobs while on EI for fear that in this market they will be cut-off for taking a risk on working elsewhere.

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.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

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.

I'd have to hear more than just anecdotal evidence.

People used to argue that the GST was subject to fraud and the underground economy. It is. However, is an effective tax for government operations for those who are law abiding and ethical.

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.

We won't be paying higher taxes because there is plenty in the EI fund now.

Boeing workers are irrelevant to our argument. They're already working the better part of a year. I understand paying their benefits short term.

However, EI almost didn't approve it and they would have been laid off. So if some of these people went to work for Aveos a short time later and got laid off, they would receive nothing. Not exactly fair.

In this I totally agree with you. The qualification guidelines can and should be amended, but not the required number of HOURS. A simple change would be to change the definition of the "Qualifying Period" Disregard previous EI claims in the last 52 weeks. IF you have worked the qualifying number of hours in the last 52 weeks, you should be eligible. If not, then forget it. 9 weeks of work in the last 52 weeks should not EVER qualify you for EI. 15 weeks shouldn't qualify you. You need to have worked the better part of a year. The current eligibility requirements for hours worked are a disgrace and making them any lower is a joke.

Workers are being hurt and Harper has drawn a line in the sand against all changes and is lying about what many of those changes are. He should get on board and improve the system more rather than standing in the way.

[jdobbin]

I don't think a Liberal should really be pointing fingers, do you? Patronage is one of the perks of becoming PM, who cares. Your Liberals made patronage appointments for 13 years, what's your point? Pathetic. Stephen Harper is the best option we've had for PM in many many years.

Harper is the one who said he would change the system. It was a broken promise.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper is the one who said he would change the system. It was a broken promise.

Small potatoes if you ask me. The Tories haven't given hundreds of millions of dollars illegally to their Quebec friends as the Liberals did with ADSCAM. I doubt you'd ever vote Conservative anyways so it really doesn't matter what you think about it jdobbin. We're not losing your vote and we'd never gain your vote either so it's a non starter sir.

[Smallc]

You lost my vote...and I voted for you last time.

[jdobbin]

Small potatoes if you ask me. The Tories haven't given hundreds of millions of dollars illegally to their Quebec friends as the Liberals did with ADSCAM. I doubt you'd ever vote Conservative anyways so it really doesn't matter what you think about it jdobbin. We're not losing your vote and we'd never gain your vote either so it's a non starter sir.

No, Harper tried to cheat the 2006 election and RCMP raided his office.

[Moonbox]

I'd have to hear more than just anecdotal evidence.

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.

People used to argue that the GST was subject to fraud and the underground economy. It is. However, is an effective tax for government operations for those who are law abiding and ethical.

The GST has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

We won't be paying higher taxes because there is plenty in the EI fund now.

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.

However, EI almost didn't approve it and they would have been laid off. So if some of these people went to work for Aveos a short time later and got laid off, they would receive nothing. Not exactly fair.

I'm 100% with you there.

Workers are being hurt and Harper has drawn a line in the sand against all changes and is lying about what many of those changes are. He should get on board and improve the system more rather than standing in the way.

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.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Moonbox

[jdobbin]

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.

You should report it yourself. When people are aware of fraud and don't report it, they are part of the problem.

The GST has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.

But fraud against the government does have something to do with what we're talking about. I don't have my eyes or ears closed to it, I want to see numbers on it and solutions to the problem. I see a solution to the fraud you speak about in EI. Report it.

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.

Unemployment remains low. Even last month there was some indication that people would rather work than be unemployed. The requirement that you have to be laid off to be eligible eliminates a lot of people who might game the system. The fact that you have to report where you have applied for a job also eliminates potential abuses.

The biggest way to eliminate fraud is for people like yourself to report it. If you know people acting fraudulently on EI, Workers Compensation or on their taxes, you should report it rather than blaming the government.

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.

I don't think Harper has a good solution. According to the experts, people are scared to jump to another job in an unstable market for fear they might lose their EI benefits due to the move.

Edited May 16, 2009 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

The Liberqal and Left lobby are trying to fabricate things to deflect the truth that Ignotieff has spent the last 2 years in Canada and the previous 34 out of Canada. He made himself out to be an American not a Canadian. I cannot believe that the Liberal leadership pool is so shallow. It's really sad actually to watch the Liberals make excuses for this accidental tourist then anything else.

[Argus]

Harper is the one who said he would change the system. It was a broken promise.

He has changed it. Only a small number of the positions are filled by Tory loyalists where all of them used to be filled by Liberal loyalists. That's a substantial imporovement.