The problem with progressives

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Avoid trolling.

Play the ball, not the player.

[WestCoastRunner]

Folks,

Avoid trolling.

Play the ball, not the player.

Seriously. Don't you think we are playing the ball? It doesn't take a lot to play the ball in this thread.

[cybercoma]

Folks,

Avoid trolling.

Play the ball, not the player.

This entire thread is about playing the players.

[WestCoastRunner]

Let's remember that this OP was started by a long term member.

[Hal 9000]

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.

.

"The social security reform exercise provoked a plethora of other reform proposals, particularly for separating eligibility for income assistance from provision of disability-related supports and services. During the 1995 provincial election campaign in Ontario, the Conservative party promised that it would act in this regard. As well, the Roeher Institute proposed a national program (provincially administered) that would offset the costs of disability, assure access to disability-related supports, and allow people with disabilities to have the same access to regular social assistance income benefits as other Canadians.

In December 1995, a ministerial council on social security reform recommended to provincial/territorial first ministers that they consider the consolidation of income support programs for people with severe disabilities. This single national program would be jointly managed but delivered by the federal government. This proposal was reminiscent of suggestions recently explored by some provinces for implementing a guaranteed annual income (GAI) as a means of removing individuals from the welfare rolls. On the positive side, a GAI would provide more adequate income support, and could improve financial incentives to work if additional earnings were taxed at a lower rate. At the same time, however, a GAI might reinforce the tendency to categorize people with disabilities as "unemployable" and divert resources from programs promoting integration with the economic mainstream. In addition, the income provided by a GAI would likely be too little to meet the needs of those with high disability-related expenses and would not adequately cover the costs of required disability-related supports and services. A concurrent tax reform measure would be required to cover these costs if a federal or provincial GAI were introduced."

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, Hal, but you missed adding the cite.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/954-e.htm

[Hal 9000]

Thanks, Hal, but you missed adding the cite.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/954-e.htm

I feel dirty that I even had to produce it at all.

Personally, I'm done with cites.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Stop trolling. This thread is permanently locked.

Argus and all,

Feel free to re-start a new thread with a clear focus. Call it The Problem With Progressives -- Take 2 if you will. If a 2nd thread takes off without being trolled, we may merge threads.

Good luck.