Michael Hardner Posted April 5 Report Share Posted April 5 Marcia Lantsman, deputy Conservative Party leader says this is policy Conservatives can "own". Paywall. PP lovers - are You in favor of handing out money to Canadians for breathing? https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2024/04/03/basic-income-is-a-concept-conservatives-should-champion/416939/ @eyeball Will you finally unleash the conservative that lurks in your dark pink heart? 😂 I've got to admit I cracked myself up a little over that dark pink heart joke. 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 5 Report Share Posted April 5 Here's the NON paywall version for those who can't get past the paywall https://archive.ph/wujNc 13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: PP lovers - are You in favor of handing out money to Canadians for breathing? So - none of the CPC are actually proposing that in the slightest. The article doesn't even say they were. In fact it mentiones one person in the party who's not even running for anything and says she said they could 'own' it without even suggesting what that meant or the context it was said in. Sigh. I actually got a little excited Mike, i thought 'holy - mike's actually contributing instead of his usual nonsense - and i click on it and find out that its just you being dishonest again. Well - that's the left for you. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 (edited) I think conservatives can embrace basic income in the following ways: 1. As a means of reducing government bloat in terms of simplifying/combining different programs reducing the # public servants needing to be paid to handle all of it, which is a net drain on the economy (government inefficiency/waste of tax dollars). 2. If there are still reasonable qualifiers for receiving the basic income, and it's not "guaranteed" to all if "all" also means people who just don't want to work even if they're healthy able-bodied and of working age and there's jobs available they're qualified for. So you'd only be qualified for the basic income if e.i. you lose your job and are searching for a new one for a short term period, you fall ill and can't work, you're a senior and can't afford the basics to live, or AI has taken so many jobs that not everyone can find one etc. I'd also support the above, but I wouldn't support any program that can be exploited and taken advantage of by freeloaders/scammers, nor should any reasonable person. Edited April 6 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 (edited) I'll simplify it: I can see conservatives supporting via basic income those who legitimately are unable to work, but i can't see them supporting those who can work but don't want to. Edited April 6 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 6 Author Report Share Posted April 6 1 hour ago, CdnFox said: i click on it and find out that its just you being dishonest again. Sorry I was paywalled, got deceived by clickbait. Whatever did Lantsman mean though? 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 41 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: I'll simplify it: I can see conservatives supporting via basic income those who legitimately are unable to work, but i can't see them supporting those who can work but don't want to. I bet if people are rioting in the streets...about halfway thru PP's term... they'll be able to see it clear as day then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Sorry I was paywalled, got deceived by clickbait. Whatever did Lantsman mean though? 🤔 It happens i suppose. it's impossible to say, they don't give ANY context or even really when she said it but for all we know she meant that as far as it goes as an election issue the CPC's position on it would dominate. But their position isn't that it should go forward. They've never supported the idea. BTW - for paywalls https://archive.ph/ is your friend. Copy the link into the "my url is alive..." box and if it's already been archived it'll pop right up and if not it'll archive it (takes time) and then it's available. Gets past about 95 percent of paywalls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaétan Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 (edited) PP or Trudeau doesn't deserve any vote because they support the génocide of palestinians for the love of the jews' money Edited April 6 by Gaétan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 6 Author Report Share Posted April 6 43 minutes ago, CdnFox said: BTW - for paywalls https://archive.ph/ is your friend. Copy the link into the "my url is alive..." box and if it's already been archived it'll pop right up and if not it'll archive it (takes time) and then it's available. Gets past about 95 percent of paywalls Don't help me with things. It's confusing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: I think conservatives can embrace basic income in the following ways: I.O.W. for exactly the same reasons it's a horrible idea for any one else to endorse it. It's nanny state communism if mentioned by the left, fiscally responsible by Tories. I mean that's what The Loyal Opposition means, you oppose it even if you agree with it just to be obstinate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 (edited) 3 hours ago, eyeball said: I bet if people are rioting in the streets...about halfway thru PP's term... they'll be able to see it clear as day then. I don't think the solution to inflation is giving out free money. In fact it would make it worse. Edited April 6 by Moonlight Graham 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Don't help me with things. It's confusing. I can't crush you intellectually if you can't bring stuff to post so.... really it's about helping me (feel better? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said: Rioting from what? You forget he's still a bit of a commie and thinks the proletariat will rise up against the oppressive capitalists any day now I think for the most part people will be fairly happy. There's bound to be a few lefties who get choked when he follows through on some promises like cutting off the cbc. But i think by and large people will be happier. Of course - the problems created by trudeau will not go away soon and the suffering will continue but things will at least improve and he can bring hope back to the people. 5 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: I don't think the solution to inflation is giving out free money. In fact it would make it worse. Giving out free money is absolutely one of the most serious causes of inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 1 hour ago, herbie said: I.O.W. for exactly the same reasons it's a horrible idea for any one else to endorse it. It's nanny state communism if mentioned by the left, fiscally responsible by Tories. I mean that's what The Loyal Opposition means, you oppose it even if you agree with it just to be obstinate. For some this is the perception yes. Personally I have no issue helping people who are genuinely in need of help or incapable of supporting themselves, but I do have an issue of creating dependency on those who aren't and them unethically exploiting taxpayers. It doesn't even follow Marx's "From each according to his ability..." ethos. There's a fine line between compassion/help and creating dependency. One is positive and the other is corrosive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 8 minutes ago, CdnFox said: You forget he's still a bit of a commie and thinks the proletariat will rise up against the oppressive capitalists any day now I think for the most part people will be fairly happy. There's bound to be a few lefties who get choked when he follows through on some promises like cutting off the cbc. But i think by and large people will be happier. Of course - the problems created by trudeau will not go away soon and the suffering will continue but things will at least improve and he can bring hope back to the people. If things get worse economically or even don't improve then I think there are risks of riots. The problems are affecting the young voters the most and they're also the most likely age group to cause public violence historically. See the George Floyd riots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 8 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said: If things get worse economically or even don't improve then I think there are risks of riots. The problems are affecting the young voters the most and they're also the most likely age group to cause public violence historically. See the George Floyd riots. well the rcmp officially shares your concern, as a recently leaked report shows. But - pp will be an position to reverse the current trends very quickly. But reverse is not erase. Things will get better - over time. There will be an immediate benefit - but we're not getting back to where we were in an instant. Hopefully if people see things moving in the right direction they'll be satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 6 Author Report Share Posted April 6 5 hours ago, CdnFox said: I can't crush you intellectually if you can't bring stuff to post so.... really it's about helping me (feel better? ) No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: No. Ahhh well - there's no pleasing you lefties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannuck Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 This is actually a very interesting topic that deserves some serious discussion. Let me start with the difference between Canada and USA: while we share a huge border and electronically distributed popular culture, there are actually some HUGE real differences. Americans are hard pressed to separate what is business and what is (or at leas IMHO SHOULD be) a social service. Sick care is a good example: the US system costs twice as much as Canadian and delivers overall much poorer results. IMHO (and again MY opinion) how we do legal systems, sick care, health care, pharmaceuticals and some other stuff actually works vs. our far wealthier neighbour to the South. From that perspective, a logical view is that one way or another we WILL be giving virtually every Canadian some sort of income - but instead of approaching it intelligently we will instead hire tens of thousands of VERY expensive bureaucrats and pay them a staggering wage and benefit to have those in need grovel and beg for their attention and money. Another thing to think of is child care. When our youngest was about 15 or so she asked why we didn't have a fancy cottage at "the lake" as did most of her mortgage heights high school classmates. I replied: "because of your million dollar babysitter". She shot right back that "Dad! I have NEVER had a babysitter in my life" She was an incredibly smart kid and very quickly shot back "Mom would have earned THAT much?" - and of course she easily would have. My wife makes Margaret Thatcher look like Olivia Chow but always brings up that while governments spew constant BS about the value of family care the actual money goes mostly anywhere but into the hands of a full time parent willing to give up outside employment to do a far more important and critical job at home. Yet another thing to think about is WHO is eligible. I once had the great pleasure and privilege to travel with Sir Roger Douglas - the man who put New Zealand's economy back on its feet when the previous governments had run it into the ground with indiscriminate subsidies to virtually ALL of the wrong things. I once asked him how he could justify the ultra-conservative things he had to do to save his economy with the fact that he was Minister in a Labour government. He said 4 words I think of each and every day as THE model of good legislation, regulation and administration: "We simply removed privilege." He went on to describe how it was a matter of either everyone was eligible to participate or nobody. You see, the purpose of government in most of this world is to dispense privilege - and that I have come to believe is the very worst thing you can do. Oh: not a complete open door, though. If you were not borne in Canada, you should have NO access to such a programme. So, there you have it: a genuine right wing Conservative who actually supports a GAI (guaranteed annual income) - under the condition that it is the ONLY handout unless you have a medical need that our sick care system doesn't cover. Dump ALL of the federal, provincial and municipal bureaucrats involved in handing out pretty much anything. The GAI level would also be the cutoff for basic personal exemption - and every penny of income above that point will be taxable - once again, for EVERYONE. We no longer will have a parade of millions of "economic opportunists" coming to Canada to bloat our cities and drive real estate costs through the roof - while taking away entry level jobs. We should have I don't know the actual number but hundreds of thousands of former bureaucrats joining the ranks with former CBC employees to actually DO some useful work and make their life valuable TO the country. No more child care handouts. If you want to do he double career and rent out child care thing - that's your problem, not mine. BUT if one wants to stay home and do child care you have been compensated to a living wage to do so. Also: same value for everyone borne and living anywhere in Canada. Why should taxpayers be passed the bill for urbanization? If you want to live in an a-hole factory such as Toronto or Vancouver it should be YOUR problem to pay the way, not mine. De-urbanization IMHO is one key element to restoring a functionally productive and sustainable economy. To get there it all needs to start with understanding the social programmes are NOT socialism - but they must exist for ANY country to operate and survive, so why not just tackle the issues head on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: I'll simplify it: I can see conservatives supporting via basic income those who legitimately are unable to work, but i can't see them supporting those who can work but don't want to. Therein lies the real problem. Who is "legitimately unable to work"? My Wife worked in Ontario social services for over 20 years and was baffled at the "legitimately unable to work" people.... and she was able to see all records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said: I don't think the solution to inflation is giving out free money. In fact it would make it worse. How do you solve the rioting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 4 minutes ago, eyeball said: How do you solve the rioting? Rioting? Who? Where? When?Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 10 minutes ago, eyeball said: How do you solve the rioting? Shotguns. First two rounds are bean bags kids -you have THAT long to learn your lesson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Rioting? Who? Where? When?Why? Canadians, everywhere, once they realize how broke Canada is. According to the RCMP at least. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/secret-rcmp-report-warns-canadians-may-revolt-once-they-realize-how-broke-they-are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 6 Report Share Posted April 6 (edited) 6 minutes ago, eyeball said: Canadians, everywhere, once they realize how broke Canada is. According to the RCMP at least. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/secret-rcmp-report-warns-canadians-may-revolt-once-they-realize-how-broke-they-are I worked in the Military. We produced plans every day. We re-wrote plans the in between times. As absurd as the situations we could dream up, we made plans to act. The RCMP intelligence and planing group do the same. Any kind of imaginary scenario has a plan to combat or, control or dissolve the issue. Your link is just another scenario that has a plan and is filed in a huge planning cabinet. Having said that, most all plans need governmental approval to enact. Oh and, all plans are secret... If exposed, as this op ed does, the plan will be cancelled and a new one made Edited April 6 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.