Scotty Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 Interesting response. What I stated was the two possible extremes of dealing with the elderly: Starve because of lack of income and guaranteed income. No, what you stated was that there was your way, the caring kind, considerate way, and then evil, heartless scummy way of those who disagreed with you. That's stupid. You aren't nearly smart enough to be 100% right on any given subject. There are nuances which seem beyond you. Finally, why would referring to my post as "infantile and stupid" encourage me to give credibility to your view and/or engage in any future communications with you? Do you notice a lot of people engaging with you? Nor do I notice you 'engaging' with many others. You can bugger off for all I care. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Big Guy Posted October 15, 2015 Report Posted October 15, 2015 No, what you stated was that there was your way, the caring kind, considerate way, and then evil, heartless scummy way of those who disagreed with you. That's stupid. You aren't nearly smart enough to be 100% right on any given subject. There are nuances which seem beyond you. Do you notice a lot of people engaging with you? Nor do I notice you 'engaging' with many others. You can bugger off for all I care. Thank you for your reply. I will try to spend more time in editing and simplifying my future posts so that you may understand them with more clarity. Yes, some nuances are beyond me because they are subtle and depend on the predisposition of the reader. The original post that appeared to upset you can be used as an example. For another example, "You can bugger off for all I care." has little nuance and can be clearly understood. I will try to use your example if there is any future correspondence with you. By the way, ORPP is another attempt for a government to force people to prepare for their inevitable retirement. The same arguments against it are the same ones that were used against the CPP - and have just as much validity - and will have the same effect. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Scotty Posted October 18, 2015 Report Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) so are Thank you for your reply. I will try to spend more time in editing and simplifying my future posts so that you may understand them with more clarity. You made yourself quite clear. Those who opposed this scheme want to see people starve and die, and so are evil. You, on the other hand, are good and kind and wonderful and caring since you do support this scheme. How could anything be more simple? Or simplistic? For another example, "You can bugger off for all I care." has little nuance and can be clearly understood. I will try to use your example if there is any future correspondence with you. Yes, I have very little interest in political dialogue with someone who insists on reflexively demonizing anyone who disagrees with him. By the way, ORPP is another attempt for a government to force people to prepare for their inevitable retirement. The same arguments against it are the same ones that were used against the CPP - and have just as much validity - and will have the same effect. No, they are not. You either know very little about the scheme or know very little about CPP. Just as a starting point, the fact this is NOT CPP, means that any payments to pensioners will be calculated as income and result in cutting back of payments under the GIS and clawbacks for the OAS. For poor contributors, the contributions are much more difficult, reducing their take-home pay, and yet at the end will likely not result in any additional income. In addition, the CPP was designed to ensure enough income to sustain one in life, that is, to feed, shelter and clothe a person. The provincial plan is based on the presumption that this is not enough, and that people need to save more in order to preserve their current lifestyle - a decision which is absolutely not up to government to make. Edited October 18, 2015 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Delayed a year. Which means it'll be an election issue for sure. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-release-budget-feb-25/article28766934/ Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Isn't Wynne backing away from this waiting for the federal government to implement the program instead? I don't follow ON politics much. Quote
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Isn't Wynne backing away from this waiting for the federal government to implement the program instead? I don't follow ON politics much. That was the ploy to help JT. If they got the Feds help to implement it, the cost would be lower. But now, much like a lot of what JT promised, it'll take some time to actually implement any of it. Quote
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 Shouldn't you be happy then? After all, it's not being implemented and that's what you wanted, no? Quote
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Shouldn't you be happy then? After all, it's not being implemented and that's what you wanted, no? Sure. . . I guess. We do need pension reform. But I don't trust this government to implement it, An expansion of CPP would be more appropriate but the CPC was dead against that. I do think tacking on a new defacto payroll tax now is a bad idea. Edited February 16, 2016 by Boges Quote
ParkdaleCon Posted February 28, 2016 Report Posted February 28, 2016 In the end this pension will give people what, $6k a year? I mean that's better than nothing, but lets call this what it is, its not meant to bring more retirement stability to Canadians, its meant to line Liberal government coffers to just justify more spending and waste, and also reinforce the paternalistic attitude the Liberal Party has always had. We as citizens are too dumb to take care of ourselves, so let us take care of you for you. No thanks. Quote
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.