The problem with progressives

[dre]

Go ahead and suspend me for whatever you think I did wrong

I don't think its really a suspendable offense, but you WILL get a reputation for being a guy that cant back up his own spiel.

[Argus]

You haven't provided any information to indicate these programs aren't helping.

Helping who? I'm sure they're helping lazy people to stay lazy if that's what you mean.

From a University of Calgary study (the School of Public Policy looked at social assistance data for people under the age of 65 from all of the provinces between 1969 and 2012) as quoted in the National Post

That over 7.5% of the people in Ontario are on welfare is hardly something to be proud of or to suggest there isn't a problem. It was over 10% before Mike Harris got in and cut rates. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people found work after that.

Again, can you provide anything to indicate these policies aren't working:

Why don't you tell me what these policies are supposed to do? Because, for the most part, they're rather incoherent on that, other than 'help people'.

And the question isn't always between an existing policy and nothing, but between an existing policy and a better policy.

For example, let's take public health care. Because of the ideological view of progressives, we have a marxist oriented health care system which prohibits most doctors, hospitals and clinics from offering their services for fees. It's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of the way the system works. This is done for ideological reasons, and yet we see system which mix public and private participation throughout Europe functioning better than ours, with shorter waits and which often cost less.

In immigration, progressives support very high rates of immigration mainly because they see opposing it as being racist since most immigrants are not white. For the same reason, they oppose shifting the source of our immigrants to countries where statistics show more successful immigrants come from because those countries tend to be white. Progressive see this as opposing racism but the actual impact is to increase poverty and lower wages for low skilled workers.

In terms of pogey, we subsidize seasonal workers to the point many maritime businesses now specifically hire people for just long enough to make their yearly minimum of days worked, then lay them off and hire others, all so they can collect pogey the rest of the year. This costs the economy in terms of lost productivity, for without this subsidy many of these people would move on to other types of jobs, or even move to areas where there is lower unemployment. Instead of subsidizing these jobs we should implement better skills training, or even pay for people to move elsewhere.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Argus

[GostHacked]

The problem with lefties are ....

The problem with progressives are ....

The problem with *.* is *.*

[WestCoastRunner]

Helping who? I'm sure they're helping lazy people to stay lazy if that's what you mean.

That over 7.5% of the people in Ontario are on welfare is hardly something to be proud of or to suggest there isn't a problem. It was over 10% before Mike Harris got in and cut rates. Unsurprisingly, a lot of people found work after that.

Why don't you tell me what these policies are supposed to do? Because, for the most part, they're rather incoherent on that, other than 'help people'.

And the question isn't always between an existing policy and nothing, but between an existing policy and a better policy.

For example, let's take public health care. Because of the ideological view of progressives, we have a marxist oriented health care system which prohibits most doctors, hospitals and clinics from offering their services for fees. It's more complicated than that, but that's the essence of the way the system works. This is done for ideological reasons, and yet we see system which mix public and private participation throughout Europe functioning better than ours, with shorter waits and which often cost less.

In immigration, progressives support very high rates of immigration mainly because they see opposing it as being racist since most immigrants are not white. For the same reason, they oppose shifting the source of our immigrants to countries where statistics show more successful immigrants come from because those countries tend to be white. Progressive see this as opposing racism but the actual impact is to increase poverty and lower wages for low skilled workers.

In terms of pogey, we subsidize seasonal workers to the point many maritime businesses now specifically hire people for just long enough to make their yearly minimum of days worked, then lay them off and hire others, all so they can collect pogey the rest of the year. This costs the economy in terms of lost productivity, for without this subsidy many of these people would move on to other types of jobs, or even move to areas where there is lower unemployment. Instead of subsidizing these jobs we should implement better skills training, or even pay for people to move elsewhere.

I have no idea what the mods think but seriously, aren't there way too many points here to focus on in one thread? This OP seriously needs to be broken up.

[Hal 9000]

I don't think its really a suspendable offense, but you WILL get a reputation for being a guy that cant back up his own spiel.

My mistake was offhandedly commenting on something (welfare reform) that I figured was common knowledge. I mean, this is a political forum, I woulda guessed that people here would have at least heard of welfare reform and had even a small understanding of the issue.

[Guest]

My mistake was offhandedly commenting on something (welfare reform) that I figured was common knowledge. I mean, this is a political forum, I woulda guessed that people here would have at least heard of welfare reform and had even a small understanding of the issue.

I agree. The whole idea of the forum is discussion, in my opinion. It's like being down the pub with a group of people. Whereas I can understand some of the younger types might not comment to another without googling their opinion on a smart beermat first, I'm a bit too old fashioned for that.

Often i'll opine on something with only a radio article listened to a year ago to back me up. I won't even remember the station. If someone disagrees, so be it.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

This thread is locked until further notice. Please be patient.

Stay tuned. We will get back to you tonight.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Sorry for the interruption and the delay. The thread is re-opened now.

This thread prompted an interesting discussion between the mods! Opinion pieces are acceptable but OPs still need to back up their posts as per the forum rules and guidelines to stimulate conversation and keep it moving forward.

That is it. Carry on!

[waldo]

My mistake was offhandedly commenting on something (welfare reform) that I figured was common knowledge. I mean, this is a political forum, I woulda guessed that people here would have at least heard of welfare reform and had even a small understanding of the issue.

I don't read anyone disputing welfare reforms occurred in the late 90s, early 00s (to varying extents in respective provinces). Googlies will readily show an impact in terms of increased homelessness; however, on a few different googlies I was unable to find anything that aligned with your premise that welfare reforms increased the number of disabled. Now... I also find references to new programs for disabled persons occurring relative to those same periods; however, no correlation, as I'm aware, is made (directly or indirectly) to coincident welfare reforms.

in any case, I trust the moderator intervention will now press the OP to actually step forward and go beyond simple unsubstantiated opinion as the basis for anything (he) stated in this thread.

.

[BC_chick]

I wonder if a massively awful "unwed mother" goes on to find a long-term relationship (of the heterosexual kind), is she redeemed or is she forever scarred?

I'm guessing her biggest sin is the lack of interest in male companionship and complete ownership of her reproductive system, but I could be wrong.

[Argus]

I wonder if a massively awful "unwed mother" goes on to find a long-term relationship (of the heterosexual kind), is she redeemed or is she forever scarred?

I'm guessing her biggest sin is the lack of interest in male companionship and complete ownership of her reproductive system, but I could be wrong.

I'm not getting into the business of judging the morality of having children out of wedlock except insofar as I think it was better - for society at large - when it was judged harshly. At that time, there was very little of that happening, in large measure because of the societal condemnation. The number of unwed mothers, and thus single parent families, has risen sharply since that time. We're talking about back in the sixties, obviously. Likewise the number of couples having children out of wedlock has drastically increased. Neither of these is, on a macro basis, good for society, and both are caused, in large measure, by society becoming much more permissive towards behaviour which used to be considered scandalous by almost everyone.

[Argus]

I have no idea what the mods think but seriously, aren't there way too many points here to focus on in one thread? This OP seriously needs to be broken up.

No, it doesn't. The point was clear. I was simply using a variety of circumstances as examples.

[Argus]

Iin any case, I trust the moderator intervention will now press the OP to actually step forward and go beyond simple unsubstantiated opinion as the basis for anything (he) stated in this thread.

Why? It's not like you actually care. If you want a cite to counter your silly American one on single parent families, then here.

Between 2006 and 2011, the number of common-law couples rose 13.9%, more than four times the 3.1% increase for married couples. Lone-parent families increased 8.0% over the same period.

This is only the most recent figure. Obviously the number of single parent families and common-law couples has risen enormously since the sixties, when such things were considered scandalous.

[Argus]

Health care is, as I said, another example of how progressive ideological beliefs get in the way of the well-being of society. Clearly the mixed use systems in Europe are as cheap or cheaper than that of Canada, and have generally better outcomes with lower waiting lists. Why is it impossible for us to seriously consider emulating them? Because progressives have this marxist utopian view of life, are anti-capitalism, and hate the thought of people turning a profit on necessary medical care. In fact, progressives generally hate the thought of profits.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Argus

[cybercoma]

Why? It's not like you actually care. If you want a cite to counter your silly American one on single parent families, then here.

Between 2006 and 2011, the number of common-law couples rose 13.9%, more than four times the 3.1% increase for married couples. Lone-parent families increased 8.0% over the same period.

This is only the most recent figure. Obviously the number of single parent families and common-law couples has risen enormously since the sixties, when such things were considered scandalous.

Did someone dispute the increase in single-parent families? There's also been a corresponding decrease in crime and increase in the number of people with college/university educations. Maybe that means single-parent families are good for society, since you like to mislead with stats.

[Argus]

Probably the most dangerous attitude progressives bring to society is the dual and complimentary sense of entitlement, on the one hand, and an absence of personal responsibility on the other. If your life sucks, well, it's not your fault. We won't blame you for all the dumb things you've done or the stupid decisions you've made or the fact you're doing little or nothing to improve yourself. No, instead we'll express unrestrained sympathy for how society has treated you poorly, and give you money. Where will we take that money? Why, from those bastards who make much more of it, you know, those successful people! Because, you know, they have no right to that money. That's YOUR money! It should be used for YOUR benefit! Your life probably sucks because of THEM anyway!

That's an attitude we see coming more often of late from progressives, and was evident in the Liberal party campaign last election to punish those who make too much money and reward those who make less.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

Why? It's not like you actually care. If you want a cite to counter your silly American one on single parent families, then here.

Between 2006 and 2011, the number of common-law couples rose 13.9%, more than four times the 3.1% increase for married couples. Lone-parent families increased 8.0% over the same period.

This is only the most recent figure. Obviously the number of single parent families and common-law couples has risen enormously since the sixties, when such things were considered scandalous.

no - you tried the same weasel ploy in the other thread... as I pointed out there. The cite I provided was directly related to your statements; these:

Now I can sympathize with their purpose. I can sympathize with individual unwed mothers and want to see them helped. I can disapprove of those who treat them badly, and do. But the end result of this change to society was, of course many, many, many, many, MANY more unwed mothers, which of course, gave rise to additional poverty and crime.

again, you're shape-shifting! Suddenly you're all about "single families" and have chosen to abandon "unwed mothers"... clearly your concerns for unwed mothers were fake/fabricated! And by the by, your latest shape-shifting into this "lone-parent" reference includes the widowed, the separated and the divorced "lone-parent"! Your stat doesn't speak to how many of those "never married", by choice or circumstance... give rise to your declared (but unsubstantiated and non-correlated) "additional poverty and crime". Surely this isn't you taking further liberties - surely!

.

[BC_chick]

I'm not getting into the business of judging the morality of having children out of wedlock except insofar as I think it was better - for society at large - when it was judged harshly. At that time, there was very little of that happening, in large measure because of the societal condemnation. The number of unwed mothers, and thus single parent families, has risen sharply since that time. We're talking about back in the sixties, obviously. Likewise the number of couples having children out of wedlock has drastically increased. Neither of these is, on a macro basis, good for society, and both are caused, in large measure, by society becoming much more permissive towards behaviour which used to be considered scandalous by almost everyone.

It might have worked for the children who were in families with two healthy functioning parents, but what about the kids who grew up in abusive households or the 'bastard' children who were ostracized for the sins of their mothers?

I alluded to this before too, but once upon a time patriarchy and monogamy served men in knowing that they are the father of the children they are raising, but in this day and age where DNA testing is so readily available, there is no need for such harsh judgment from society if parents of a child are not together.

As cybercoma indicated crime rates has fallen so your theory of the glory days aren't very grounded in reality.

Edited April 20, 2016 by BC_chick

[WestCoastRunner]

Health care is, as I said, another example of how progressive ideological beliefs get in the way of the well-being of society. Clearly the mixed use systems in Europe are as cheap or cheaper than that of Canada, and have generally better outcomes with lower waiting lists. Why is it impossible for us to seriously consider emulating them? Because progressives have this marxist utopian view of life, are anti-capitalism, and hate the thought of people turning a profit on necessary medical care. In fact, progressives generally hate the thought of profits.

This thread is ridiculous. On the one hand we need to debate policies on 'unwed mothers', then it's welfare reform and now it's our healthcare system. What a stupid thread.

[BC_chick]

This thread is ridiculous. On the one hand we need to debate policies on 'unwed mothers', then it's welfare reform and now it's our healthcare system. What a stupid thread.

You made me laugh.

Well, it lives up to its title at least. It's a very all-encompassing.

Oh and you forgot about the entitled part.

[WestCoastRunner]

You made me laugh.

Well, it lives up to its title at least. It's a very all-encompassing.

Oh and you forgot about the entitled part.

Heh. Just too much stuff to focus on!

[jacee]

Probably the most dangerous attitude progressives bring to society is the dual and complimentary sense of entitlement, on the one hand, and an absence of personal responsibility on the other. If your life sucks, well, it's not your fault. We won't blame you for all the dumb things you've done or the stupid decisions you've made or the fact you're doing little or nothing to improve yourself. No, instead we'll express unrestrained sympathy for how society has treated you poorly, and give you money. Where will we take that money? Why, from those bastards who make much more of it, you know, those successful people! Because, you know, they have no right to that money. That's YOUR money! It should be used for YOUR benefit! Your life probably sucks because of THEM anyway!

That's an attitude we see coming more often of late from progressives, and was evident in the Liberal party campaign last election to punish those who make too much money and reward those who make less.

O.MI.God.

There oughta be a shut off button on cantankerous rich old farts! ?

He's complaining about his taxes!

Apr 20 ... only 10 days to go Argus!

Did you not hide enough income? ?

TFF

Now he's walking the streets, swinging his cane at small children with their SINGLE mothers.

YOU! took my money kid!

Yes YOU! You slobbering little bastard and your commie slut mother!

???

? I think I peed a little. ?

?

[WestCoastRunner]

O.MI.God.

There oughta be a shut off button on cantankerous rich old farts! ?

He's complaining about his taxes!

Apr 20 ... only 10 days to go Argus!

Did you not hide enough income? ?

TFF

Now he's walking the streets, swinging his cane at small children with their SINGLE mothers.

YOU! took my money kid!

Yes YOU! You slobbering little bastard and your commie slut mother!

???

? I think I peed a little. ?

?

A great response. This is really what it boils down to. Argus continually complains about his hard earned money going to help the less fortunate including 'unwed mothers'. Geez.

[BC_chick]

Yes YOU! You slobbering little bastard and your commie slut mother!

LMAO. That wins the comment of the day.

[WestCoastRunner]

Argus, do you feel the burn?