Elizabeth May

[waldo]

you made contributions... you were entitled to draw. Is the reason you didn't because you immediately found a job... if you hadn't been able to immediately find a job, are you saying you would never have exercised your entitlement... do you have an innate difficulty in utilizing something you've paid for?

My family and most others I know of at the time I was laid off (a few times) had a work ethic, which obviously May and I might add many other of the May generation don't seem to share. I actually went out and looked for jobs. I actually thought as an able bodied person with a brain and conscience, that I should work. So, I never took the easy 'May-Day' approach and sucked any funds from other hard working tax paying workers. As a union man, I resented those that took advantage of the rights we had won. May chose the easy way over and over. Actually I would not be surprised had she taken some work and was paid under the table. That still goes on.

you didn't answer the questions; again: "if you hadn't been able to immediately find a job, are you saying you would never have exercised your entitlement... do you have an innate difficulty in utilizing something you've paid for?"

I would also be interested in reading anything you can provide to substantiate, as you state/imply, there is a generational aspect involved in regards to those who choose to exercise their EI entitlement - waiting...

I'll ask you the same question concerning the EI tax deduction entitlement... have you utilized that deduction... regularly. If not, why not? If so, what distinctions do you make between these respective EI associated entitlements?

other than your need to further cast aspersion, you have no foundation other than your innate biases, to imply 'under the table work' - well done!

on your shame meter, just what level do you assign Ms. May... how is your meter calibrated in terms of usage to shame ratings?

My scale is Work Ethic.= pride of self. 10 of 10

Loaf and take from others without effort to avoid. = Lazy, shiftless, opportunistic, (in the sense of: " Exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to moral principle."

And she's still getting paid from our tax dollars On my scale, she'd get a 'fail' aka one as I'm the important one, 'Me' first.

and if individuals can't find work in a recognized economically depressed region, a region acknowledged as being reliant on seasonal work, where does your personal 'Peeves Shame Meter' settle in on those individuals who choose to exercise their full entitlements? Do you also have a separate 'Peeves Morality Meter'?

[Keepitsimple]

you made contributions... you were entitled to draw.

This statement by Waldo goes to the heart of the issue - that sense of disproportionate entitlement. It's not like a regular insurance plan where everytime you make a claim, your rates go up. Those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed are "subsidized" by those whose careers/work are seldom if ever interrupted. Repeat claimants have to acknowledge and respect that fact....unless of course, they'd like to pay higher and higher premiums - just like a real insurance plan.....

[waldo]

you made contributions... you were entitled to draw.

This statement by Waldo goes to the heart of the issue - that sense of disproportionate entitlement. It's not like a regular insurance plan where everytime you make a claim, your rates go up. Those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being unemployed are "subsidized" by those whose careers/work are seldom if ever interrupted. Repeat claimants have to acknowledge and respect that fact....unless of course, they'd like to pay higher and higher premiums - just like a real insurance plan.....

disproportionate entitlement? The entitlement... is the entitlement. You pay your contributions; under the terms of the program, if you have eligibility, you're entitled.

your go-to talking point, "like a real insurance plan", belies the fact you can't equate the risk factors to presume on, "like adjusted premiums". Apparently, government and business have some involvement in determining the economic playing field and job availability in economically depressed regions, particularly those dependent on seasonal work... an individual has little/no personal risk attachment to government/business actions (or lack of, therein) - go figure!

[bush_cheney2004]

disproportionate entitlement? The entitlement... is the entitlement. You pay your contributions; under the terms of the program, if you have eligibility, you're entitled.

Kinda like....a proof is a proof...because it's proven.

[Keepitsimple]

Kinda like....a proof is a proof...because it's proven.

That WAS kinda funny, wasn't it...

Edited June 12, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

disproportionate entitlement? The entitlement... is the entitlement. You pay your contributions; under the terms of the program, if you have eligibility, you're entitled.

your go-to talking point, "like a real insurance plan", belies the fact you can't equate the risk factors to presume on, "like adjusted premiums". Apparently, government and business have some involvement in determining the economic playing field and job availability in economically depressed regions, particularly those dependent on seasonal work... an individual has little/no personal risk attachment to government/business actions (or lack of, therein) - go figure!

That WAS kinda funny, wasn't it...

you're eligible... you have an entitlement - hardly funny, hey? Couldn't be any simpler... even for you... Simple!

what is funny, though, was your pulling out the go-to talking point, "like a real insurance plan". It was even funnier to read you go mute... no actual comments then, hey?