Atlantic premiers want EI changes suspended

[MadX]

I found that comment earlier about east coasters "having their feelings hurt" quite offensive. This person isn't from the east coast and has no right commenting on something that they possibly couldn't comprehend. People from the Maritimes and Newfoundland are probably the hardest working people in the country. Many people who work in Alberta are from the east coast. I think what Harper said regarding us having a defeatist attitude and being lazy were highly offensive and just demonstrates his disdain and feelings of superiority he feels towards Atlantic Canada. I wonder if the rest of Canada views us that way as well.

[MadX]

EI is self sustaining by the way. The program is paid for by the workers and is only managed by the government. I don't think Harper has the right to tamper with a system that is already sustainable. I think he should balance the budget the government books rather than reaching into our pockets and taking away a program that we the workers already paid for. True their are some abuses of the system and they should be stopped but I'm far more concerned with corporate corruption which costs the taxpayers more money as well as the government's mismanagement of our tax dollars that took us from a surplus in 2006 to five consecutive deficits since 2008.

[TimG]

IE There are people in every province using EI due to seasonal industries, and the seasonal fluctuation is about the same across the country - 35%.[/b] (Lowest month/highest)

This gives a more accurate picture of the situation:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionk/k-province-eng.htm

In % percentage terms the Maritimes are the biggest users.

Also benefits are nearly twice are large in the Maritimes:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml#table2

In any case, the reforms do not discriminate. If you use EI every year you will get less. This is fair.

Edited May 2, 2013 by TimG

[jacee]

This gives a more accurate picture of the situation:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/71-222-x/2008001/sectionk/k-province-eng.htm

In % percentage terms the Maritimes are the biggest users.

Also benefits are nearly twice are large in the Maritimes:

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/regular.shtml#table2

In any case, the reforms do not discriminate. If you use EI every year you will get less. This is fair.

Point being: There are people all across the country dependent on EI to fill in for seasonal industries.

The current system doesn't discriminate either, as benefits reflect opportunities for employment by area.

[Boges]

EI is self sustaining by the way. The program is paid for by the workers and is only managed by the government. I don't think Harper has the right to tamper with a system that is already sustainable. I think he should balance the budget the government books rather than reaching into our pockets and taking away a program that we the workers already paid for. True their are some abuses of the system and they should be stopped but I'm far more concerned with corporate corruption which costs the taxpayers more money as well as the government's mismanagement of our tax dollars that took us from a surplus in 2006 to five consecutive deficits since 2008.

What's happening is that people who pay EI for years without ever taking from it are subsidizing people who use it every year to top up their seasonal employment so they can sit at home watching TV the rest of the year.

Also I wouldn't blame the current government for the deficits, there was a global meltdown in 2008. Kensian spending was actually forced upon the government by the opposition parties by threatening to combine their votes and taking control of the house.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Boges

[MadX]

What's happening is that people who pay EI for years without ever taking from it are subsidizing people who use it every year to top up their seasonal employment so they can sit at home watching TV the rest of the year.

Also I wouldn't blame the current government for the deficits, there was a global meltdown in 2008. Kensian spending was actually forced upon the government by the opposition parties by threatening to combine their votes and taking control of the house.

Yes, there are people who pay into EI who never use it but most of them are well off and don't need to draw from it. I'll give Harper a pass for the deficits run in 2008 and 2009. I actually happen to be a big fan of Keynesian economics, its a more humane form of capitalism. Neoliberalism is just pure evil in my opinion. I realize that George W. Bush and the Republican party actually caused the 2008 global meltdown by deregulating the housing industry. So yeah Harper is off the hook for the first couple of years after the meltdown. However, his surpluses during the first two years in office were smaller than those under the late Chretien and Martin years. By cutting the GST and corporate taxes, Harper reduced the amount of revenue to the government and therefore increased the deficit when we hit an economic crisis. Also, Harper hasn't run a surplus since 2007. Harper should raise taxes on millionaires and profitable corporations. Why should they get a tax break while the rest of us have to suffer. I'm actually glad he's going after tax havens but he's probably only doing it because the government is broke. He also gave the rich people plenty of warning. He's doing it out of necessity, not ideology.

A link to our anti-Harper forum with a topic about the debt and deficit under the Harper government.

http://www.antiharper.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13

Edited May 2, 2013 by MadX

[Boges]

Yes, there are people who pay into EI who never use it but most of them are well off and don't need to draw from it. I'll give Harper a pass for the deficits run in 2008 and 2009. I actually happen to be a big fan of Keynesian economics, its a more humane form of capitalism. Neoliberalism is just pure evil in my opinion. I realize that George W. Bush and the Republican party actually caused the 2008 global meltdown by deregulating the housing industry. So yeah Harper is off the hook for the first couple of years after the meltdown. However, his surpluses during the first two years in office were smaller than those under the late Chretien and Martin years. By cutting the GST and corporate taxes, Harper reduced the amount of revenue to the government and therefore increased the deficit when we hit an economic crisis. Also, Harper hasn't run a surplus since 2007. Harper should raise taxes on millionaires and profitable corporations. Why should they get a tax break while the rest of us have to suffer. I'm actually glad he's going after tax havens but he's probably only doing it because the government is broke. He also gave the rich people plenty of warning. He's doing it out of necessity, not ideology.

A link to our anti-Harper forum with a topic about the debt and deficit under the Harper government.

http://www.antiharper.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13

I think it's a fallacy to label people who never draw from EI as "well off". They may have happened to be lucky enough to stay employed.

Harper only was able to have 100% control of the budget in 2011. If the Opposition was so opposed to the reduction in the GST and his pro-business bias they could have voted down any budget he tabled. They certainly were opposed to Harper trying to balance the budget in late 2008 in the face of the Economic meltdown.

Also, I think you'll find some of the deregulation that ended up causing the meltdown was started by the Clinton administration 10 years early as well as the government insisting on banks allowing people to offer mortgages to people that were considered risky borrowers.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Boges

[MadX]

I think it's a fallacy to label people who never draw from EI as "well off". They may have happened to be lucky enough to stay employed.

Harper only was able to have 100% control of the budget in 2011. If the Opposition was so opposed to the reduction in the GST and his pro-business bias they could have voted down any budget he tabled. They certainly were opposed to Harper trying to balance the budget in late 2008 in the face of the Economic meltdown.

Also, I think you'll find some of the deregulation that ended up causing the meltdown was started by the Clinton administration 10 years early as well as the government insisting on banks allowing people to offer mortgages to people that were considered risky borrowers.

Exactly, "lucky" to still be employed. That's what it is too sometimes, luck.

You are actually correct about Clinton, he repealed the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 which opened up the floodgates allowing this to happen. Further deregulation happened under the Bush regime. You are right about the opposition parties as well, they should have voted down corporate tax cuts and the GST. I'm not against tax cuts such as the GST because it would have saved me money but I think we should have had the debt paid down more before we offered any tax cuts. I realize the government had a surplus at that time but it wasn't that big. I'll criticize my own side when they screw up and you are right, the opposition dropped the ball when they should have took it and ran with it. They should have voted down Harper's tax cuts because they were reckless fiscal policy. Even so though, the cuts were Harper's idea and it doesn't let him off the hook.

[Boges]

Exactly, "lucky" to still be employed. That's what it is too sometimes, luck.

You are actually correct about Clinton, he repealed the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 which opened up the floodgates allowing this to happen. Further deregulation happened under the Bush regime. You are right about the opposition parties as well, they should have voted down corporate tax cuts and the GST. I'm not against tax cuts such as the GST because it would have saved me money but I think we should have had the debt paid down more before we offered any tax cuts. I realize the government had a surplus at that time but it wasn't that big. I'll criticize my own side when they screw up and you are right, the opposition dropped the ball when they should have took it and ran with it. They should have voted down Harper's tax cuts because they were reckless fiscal policy. Even so though, the cuts were Harper's idea and it doesn't let him off the hook.

He got elected on those policies though. He increased in popularity and strength in every election he's fought. He has the mandate to implement his agenda. That's why voting down the GST cut and taking the country back to an election would have been a poor political decision. In 2015 the public will have the opportunity to turf him again.

But that's not the point of this thread. It's EI. You have to be good to be lucky sometimes. You'll still have to defend your claim that people that only work part of the year should be allowed to claim EI the rest of the year by people that work year round.

It's an insurance policy, not a salary top up. Would you support increased premiums for people that make more claims? That's how all other insurance policies work.

[MadX]

He got elected on those policies though. He increased in popularity and strength in every election he's fought. He has the mandate to implement his agenda. That's why voting down the GST cut and taking the country back to an election would have been a poor political decision. In 2015 the public will have the opportunity to turf him again.

But that's not the point of this thread. It's EI. You have to be good to be lucky sometimes. You'll still have to defend your claim that people that only work part of the year should be allowed to claim EI the rest of the year by people that work year round.

It's an insurance policy, not a salary top up. Would you support increased premiums for people that make more claims? That's how all other insurance policies work.

It would have been a poor political decision but it would have been the right thing for the country. I've followed politics ever since I was a young teen and even back in 2006, I figured these cuts were a bad idea. I didn't know that the 2008 meltdown was going to happen. I was 15 years old at the time, but my mindset was that debt should be reduced and eliminated. We can't give out "goodies" like tax breaks until all our bills are paid. I'm not saying we had to pay down the debt completely, that would probably take 40 years, but it should have been at least reduced by 20 or 30% before we started handing out tax breaks. I wish the Canadian public would have seen it that way too. We need to plan for the long-term not give out short term bonuses that aren't sustainable. I think in hindsight more people might see it that way now. Its unfortunate that politics work the way they do.

And yes, I do support giving out EI to seasonal workers. By forcing seasonal workers off EI, it will depopulate Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. These workers will take their money and be forced to move away to Alberta, which is what many Martimers have already been forced to do, they will then take their money with them and it will impact our economy. I realize that remittances from Alberta do sometimes make their way back home but I know many people from the east coast who have moved out there permanently and never came back. Not that I can blame them, the employment situation out here is deplorable. I think taking EI away from seasonal workers though is another nail in the coffin for this region. I think it shows Harper's disdain for Atlantic Canada. He did call us lazy one time, saying we had a "culture of defeat". What an arrogant condescending, well I'll let you fill in the rest.

[Moonbox]

I found that comment earlier about east coasters "having their feelings hurt" quite offensive. This person isn't from the east coast and has no right commenting on something that they possibly couldn't comprehend.

We can't comment on something if we're not from the East Coast? Does that mean that Quebecquers can't comment on the Oil Sands, or that Maritimers can't comment on anything outside their little world? Sorry, that's really dumb. EI for seasonal workers is REALLY not hard to 'comprehend' either, so get a clue. I hope your feelings aren't too hurt.

EI is self sustaining by the way. The program is paid for by the workers and is only managed by the government. I don't think Harper has the right to tamper with a system that is already sustainable.

The only reason EI is sustainable is because the people who don't abuse it put far more money into it than they should have to so that perennial seasonal works can laze about all winter while the rest of Canada works. The contributions these seasonal layabouts make are tiny fractions of what they take out, and the rest of Canada doesn't appreciate that.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Moonbox

[MadX]

We can't comment on something if we're not from the East Coast? Does that mean that Quebecquers can't comment on the Oil Sands, or that Maritimers can't comment on anything outside their little world? Sorry, that's really dumb. EI for seasonal workers is REALLY not hard to 'comprehend' either, so get a clue. I hope your feelings aren't too hurt.

The only reason EI is sustainable is because the people who don't abuse it put far more money into it than they should have to so that perennial seasonal works can laze about all winter while the rest of Canada works. The contributions these seasonal layabouts make are tiny fractions of what they take out, and the rest of Canada doesn't appreciate that.

I suppose you support the complete depopulation of the Maritimes. And no my feelings aren't hurt. I'm a big guy who lifts weights and plays sports. Masculine men don't get their feelings hurt. It's not hurting anyone if a few thousand fisherman take out EI every year. It doesn't cost the government anything. I wonder if you get as ticked off about Harper trying to privatize our water and interfering in labour disputes as you do about frequent EI users.

[jacee]

The only reason EI is sustainable is because the people who don't abuse it put far more money into it

than they should have to so that perennial seasonal works can laze about all winter while the rest of Canada works. The contributions these seasonal layabouts make are tiny fractions of what they take out, and the rest of Canada doesn't appreciate that.

Really offensive to be so insulting about it and btw ... there are plenty of seasonal workers in EVERY province - "the rest of Canada" uses EI seasonally too.

So complain about the seasonal workers in your own province.

[Bonam]

I suppose you support the complete depopulation of the Maritimes. And no my feelings aren't hurt. I'm a big guy who lifts weights and plays sports. Masculine men don't get their feelings hurt.

[Moonbox]

MadX, on 02 May 2013 - 11:02, said:

I suppose you support the complete depopulation of the Maritimes.

If there's not enough work to sustain the population, absolutely. I imagine, however, that cutting off the public teat from these lazy parasites will have numerous positive effects. Higher wages for seasonal work would potentially be one of them.

MadX, on 02 May 2013 - 11:02, said:

And no my feelings aren't hurt. I'm a big guy who lifts weights and plays sports. Masculine men don't get their feelings hurt.

I'm very glad for you.

MadX, on 02 May 2013 - 11:02, said:

It's not hurting anyone if a few thousand fisherman take out EI every year. It doesn't cost the government anything.

That's just suuuuch a stupid comment. It hurts everyone who pays into EI when seasonal workers abuse it every year. If not for them, hard working and contributing Canadians wouldn't have to pay such high EI premiums. We're working harder and paying extra so that losers can goof/laze around all winter.

For someone who says he's been following politics since his teenage years you certainly have a pretty lame grasp on reality. It doesn't cost the government anything? Really!?? Well duh. Nothing costs the government anything. It's ultimately working Canadians that pay.

Really offensive to be so insulting about it and btw ... there are plenty of seasonal workers in EVERY province - "the rest of Canada" uses EI seasonally too.

I don't think any better about seasonal workers abusing EI anywhere else in Canada. Read the thread title, however, and you'll realize why we've focused on the Maritimes. Edited May 3, 2013 by Moonbox