ToadBrother Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Canada is a very different place. I'm sure you must know that. I'd still like him to indicate how his claim of that the US Senate is harmful is actually true. Since anything seen too harmful to the overall national interest can be overrided by the President and the House of Representatives, I don't even get how what he's saying actually happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) Whether they were successful or not aside, the concept of the US senate was to take the hard edge off "the tyranny of the majority". Yes, it has some downsides, but so does strict per capital influence. Any formulation is going to have a downside. I imagine the Founding Fathers were well aware that a house of states was going to give smaller states a distorted voice (been a while since I read the Federalist Papers, but I'm sure I could find all of it brought up there, they really should be required reading for anyone with interest in constitutional issues). That's why they also have a House of Representatives based purely on the population of any given state and gave both houses a good deal of overlapping legislative powers, so that the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the geography (for lack of a better term) would counterbalance. Beyond that, the states are equal partners, politically, in the Union. It's like going to the UN General Assembly and saying "We're sorry, Canada, you have 30-odd million people and China has 1.x billion, so we're only going to give you a partial voice." Edited June 23, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I'd still like him to indicate how his claim of that the US Senate is harmful is actually true. Since anything seen too harmful to the overall national interest can be overrided by the President and the House of Representatives, I don't even get how what he's saying actually happens. Agreed...it's not like the Americans have perennial bitching about their (elected) Senate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 We are not governed by the rules of the BNA Act. Ummmm... Wha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Ten years? Even the most miserly private sector employer vests a pension after 3. Ten years is completely unreasonable. wake up Jack it is 2011. Very few private sector corporations have or wish to have any involvement whatsover in their employees pensions other than to toss in the odd buck. My point was that if pension considerations are an issue in a reformed Senate, make them go away. It is that simple. The majority of Senators are already pensioneres before they start anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 If you're not able to put away money for retirement when you're making at least $132,300 per year, then you probably aren't responsible enough to be running our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 If you're not able to put away money for retirement when you're making at least $132,300 per year, then you probably aren't responsible enough to be running our country. I've never particularly understood this animosity towards Members of Parliament being paid well. Anyone with the briefest review of history should know that there was a point in the past when Parliamentarians at Westminster were not, in fact, paid at all, which had the dual effect of excluding a good many people who simply could not financially afford to put their lives on hold to be an MP as well as encouraging a good deal of corruption. I can tell you this. If I was expected to spend a good chunk of my time in Ottawa until age 75, I wouldn't be doing it for peanuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 $132,300 per year, base, to do very little work is not well-paid? Someone who works 40 hours per week for the entire year (which they don't) would be making just under $64/hour to pull in that salary. You don't think that's enough money to put some away for retirement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 $132,300 per year, base, to do very little work What exactly do you consider to be very little work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I've never particularly understood this animosity towards Members of Parliament being paid well. Anyone with the briefest review of history should know that there was a point in the past when Parliamentarians at Westminster were not, in fact, paid at all, which had the dual effect of excluding a good many people who simply could not financially afford to put their lives on hold to be an MP as well as encouraging a good deal of corruption. I can tell you this. If I was expected to spend a good chunk of my time in Ottawa until age 75, I wouldn't be doing it for peanuts. I've never hear of a MP staying until they are 75, senators yes, but then, you can retire anytime you want. The best job and benefits are being a MP. The wages are as outrages as their pensions. Taxpayers, in this down turn, now pay, it went from $4.00 to $5.50 to every ONE DOLLAR the MP pays. MP's much 2-4X more than most Canadians and yet they pay little on their own pensions, thanks to the Tory government! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 thanks to the Tory government! Excuse me, but, WTF are you talking about? Your nonsense anti Conservative posts are a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 $132,300 per year, base, to do very little work is not well-paid? Someone who works 40 hours per week for the entire year (which they don't) would be making just under $64/hour to pull in that salary. You don't think that's enough money to put some away for retirement? And what you would expect to be paid for such a job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Excuse me, but, WTF are you talking about? Your nonsense anti Conservative posts are a joke. Right after the budget came down, the finance minister increased the taxpayers portion towards the MP's pension from $4.00 to 5.50 to their ONE DOLLAR. Now, I know you may not believe me so watch this video from....Sun TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 If I'm not mistaken, the finance minister is required to keep the pension plan fully funded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 It's a lovely dream. I doubt it would happen, but wouldn't it be something if the Senate introduced a bill to amend the electoral process for the House of Commons! Oh the sweet irony of that. Here's some irony . . . The senate reform bill lays out senate election requirements as first-past-the-post, providing an opening to discuss whether we want to perpetuate that system. This is becoming interesting! This is from Fairvote Canada: >> Harper government ?modernizes? Senate ? into the 11th Century >> >> Minister of State for Democratic Reforms Tim Uppal Tuesday introduced >> legislation into the House to provide a ?voluntary framework? for >> provinces to elect nominees to the Senate. The nominees named by the >> provinces would then be appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister. >> >> Astonishingly, the legislation specifies the same antiquated voting >> system that has a history of delivering false majority governments, >> including the current one. Although the Conservatives received less >> than forty percent of the votes cast in the recent election, Minister >> Uppal describes this as a ?strong mandate? for Senate reform. >> >> ?We are stuck with first-past-the-post voting in the House of Commons >> through an accident of history,? said Shoni Field, newly-elected >> President of Fair Vote Canada (FVC), Canada?s citizens? movement for >> electoral reform. ?In recent history, no country designing a voting >> system from scratch has chosen the winner-take-all system that we >> use.? >> >> ?Fair Vote Canada has no policy on whether the Senate should be >> elected, appointed, or abolished,? she added. ?The first and most >> urgent priority at the federal level is to give Canadians a truly >> representative House of Commons. Consideration of Senate reform or >> abolition should be addressed after citizens have chosen a fair and >> modern system to elect their MPs. >> >> ?But if the Senate is to be elected, then surely it must be elected >> using a modern, fair, proportional system. Choosing this antiquated >> system cannot be considered progress. What a missed opportunity to >> move Canadian democracy forward!? >> >> ?It used to be Conservative policy to that the Senate should be >> elected by proportional representation,? said FVC Executive Director >> Wayne Smith. ?It is extremely disappointing that they have abandoned >> fairness in favour of winner-take-all. >> See more at fairvotecanada.ca -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Here's some irony . . . The senate reform bill lays out senate election requirements as first-past-the-post, providing an opening to discuss whether we want to perpetuate that system. This is becoming interesting! The bill could state they be chosen by tarot card or goose livers. The bill is unconstitutional and it seems likely that it will be immediately challenged by at least two provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 If I'm not mistaken, the finance minister is required to keep the pension plan fully funded. and with more senators come more pensions, because of the shorter term. Do we want to pay more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 The bill could state they be chosen by tarot card or goose livers. The bill is unconstitutional and it seems likely that it will be immediately challenged by at least two provinces. And it all falls apart as predicted, but maybe not before raising the issue of electoral reform. Sweet irony indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 and with more senators come more pensions, because of the shorter term. Do we want to pay more? I don't think, from what I've heard in the media, that pensions for senators are very large after 9 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eCitizen Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) wake up Jack it is 2011. Very few private sector corporations have or wish to have any involvement whatsover in their employees pensions other than to toss in the odd buck. My point was that if pension considerations are an issue in a reformed Senate, make them go away. It is that simple. The majority of Senators are already pensioneres before they start anyway. Babs, Babs, Babs. Why so harsh? Senators are pensioners before they start? Well, Babs, that's because they are appointed for doing good party works. But an elected senate might look differently, dontcha think, Babs? Hey, Babs, I'm all for getting rid of vested pensions, but this is the world we all live in. Hmmmmm....kay? And Babs, how about those newly boosted MP pensions? Edited June 25, 2011 by eCitizen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eCitizen Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Right after the budget came down, the finance minister increased the taxpayers portion towards the MP's pension from $4.00 to 5.50 to their ONE DOLLAR. Now, I know you may not believe me so watch this video from....Sun TV. Egregious ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Another Senator under investigation for legal acts while being paid from us the tax payer. I guess we just sent one to jail so why not try for another, I mean soon we will have as many Senators in Prison as in the Red Chamber. Abolish the Senate! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-probes-senator-mac-harb-over-business-trips-to-bangladesh/article2075627/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Abolish the Senate! Care to explain how that's going to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Another Senator under investigation for legal acts while being paid from us the tax payer. I guess we just sent one to jail so why not try for another, I mean soon we will have as many Senators in Prison as in the Red Chamber. That's about the most moronic thing you've ever posted. That's so far beyond hyperbole it must sit somewhere in the realm of hallucination. Care to provide the number of Senators currently in prison? Abolish the Senate! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-probes-senator-mac-harb-over-business-trips-to-bangladesh/article2075627/ Get seven provinces equalling fifty percent of the population and then we'll talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Yes, and while we're at it, lets abolish the Court, the House and the civil service. Hell, lets abolish all government. See how stupid that is, punked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.