Comments on: More Conservative antagtonism towards the social safety net revealed

By: Justice Will Be Done, Just Not For Liberal Cronies « Unambiguously Ambidextrous

Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:28:20 +0000

[...] of the Liberal party for at least as long. Ah well. There are more important things to worry about, such as why Stephen Harper is such an evil social security net-destroying monster. Posted in canada. Tags: Chuck Guite, Corruption, Liberals, Sponsorship [...]

By: Beijing York

Beijing York — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:55:50 +0000

EI does not reward people unwilling to work. You’re only eligible if you lose your job through lay offs. It’s also an insurance system as pointed out by Jan. Workers have paid into the plan to have protections.

As for Solberg and training, did he not familiarize himself with the dozens of training programs that exist at Human Resources when he was minister? Again, no amount of re-training is going to help if there are no jobs to go to.

Didn’t Harper insult unemployed voters with a quip about moving to Alberta for a job during the last election? I can’t believe we are headed for one of the hardest recessions yet with Harper at the helm.

By: janfromthebruce

janfromthebruce — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:48:06 +0000

And to build on Raphael Alexander’s above post, it is why instead of blowing up EI, it needs to be placed out of reach of the govt of the day, and run like an insurance scheme. I think the Cons are pissed that they don’t they the kitty to spend on their own pet projects.

By: Raphael Alexander

Raphael Alexander — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:51:15 +0000

E.I. is a Liberal slush fund that started with Paul Martin and ended with a $54 billion surplus. They also made it more difficult to get E.I., necessitating the so-called coalition’s manifesto that proclaimed an easier way to collect. Some selling point. Advertise easier E.I. rates and pass it off as something the Conservatives did.

As for E.I., it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars since it takes 6 weeks to collect, and then only provides 55% of your income. If you live on that you might just be ready for welfare anyway. And now, guess what? E.I. payroll deductions are going up to $90 extra this year. So while you’re busting ass in the economy, the government is increasing that $54 billion surplus, thus completing the Liberal Martin legacy of steal and spend.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:36:24 +0000

Well, I think the cons want people to lose everything they have during recessions. It allows richer people to buy up property really cheap amongst other things. Remember it was Harper himself who said its a good time to buy stocks when asked if we were going into recession. A lot of complaints on the neo-con side has more to do with them not being able to take advantage of people who lost their jobs/homes, etc than helping them. Canada couldn’t have elected a worst government in a recession period. If the cons get their way, the rich WILL become richer and everyone else will be thrown under the bus.

By: Northern PoV

Northern PoV — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Funny – if one were to produce a “hierarchy of the deserving” (a most Conservative concept I am sure) surely the recently employed, (and now unemployed due to a global recession) would rank fairly high.

By: Jymn

Jymn — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:24:43 +0000

I was without notice laid off a few months ago. In this economic climate – or maybe it’s my age – I am having no luck securing employment at even half of what I used to make. And, I can tell you EI benefits barely cover the necessities. I don’t think Harper and the Con’s philosophy is helping at all. I just wish these people would work as hard on stimulating the economy and opening up the job market as they do trying to denigrate those who have succumbed to job cuts.

By: Mark Francis

Mark Francis — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:42:30 +0000

EI has been spent on re-training for years. There has to be jobs to re-train for though, right?

“True conservatives” — whatever… I thought many of those CEOs were exactly that.

By: janfromthebruce

janfromthebruce — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:41:55 +0000

“Seems like reasonable points for a program that was set out to establish bridge-funding *between jobs* that would provide for a family or single person.”

More realistic people who know the history of EI would suggest that EI was created to protect people from capitalism’s “built-in troughs”, like the Great Depression of the 1930s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_insurance#Canada. They call that the business cycle. In the mid 90s, there was this bull belief that we would have never ending growth and have little turbulence (neoliberal policies), and with that crap, EI was rejigged, to fit the “new global economy” of “just in time workers”. It became leaner and meaner.
The fact of the matter is that workers and their employers pay into this insurance scheme, and it should be administered at arms length from govt – to keep their hands out. It’s the same as the skimming off of surplus pension benefits by businesses.
Scott and I are on the same page on this one.
Historical note:

Since that time period, EI has been greatly reduced by both conservative and liberal govts combined, so that it’s a lot harder to collect. The liberals as we all know, used as a cash cow and drained it. Since 1990s, the federal govt does not top up this fund, so they should keep their grubby paws off of it.

By: Say What

Say What — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:39:17 +0000

Mark, true conservatives are as angry about what some CEO’s receive as pay and benefit packages, as anyone.