20

The difference between passage and defeat


 

The Globe chronicles Jack Layton’s decision.

The NDP Leader says what he found in the budget wasn’t even close to what he’d requested. He’d asked for money to pay for new family doctors and nurses. Instead he found $18-million to entice doctors and nurses to move to rural areas. “I don’t see rural Canadians saying they can take them away from urban areas.”

He’d wanted $700-million to lift low-income seniors out of poverty through the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Tories offered $300-million. Mr. Mulcair suggested the paucity of money for seniors was what clinched it for the NDP, comparing the money the Tories had committed in previous budgets for business tax cuts to what was delivered for older Canadians Tuesday.

More from the Star.


 
Filed under:

The difference between passage and defeat

  1. Flaherty could have taken the $300 mill they're going to spend on the election, and given it to Jack's seniors. Election avoided, no extra money needed.

    Unless the Conservatives actually wanted an election…

    …dun dun dun dunnnnnn!

  2. Because you think this $300 million, once implemented, would be a one-off, non-recurring expense, worthy of either-or comparison to a single general election?

  3. The Tories offered $300-million (more to the GIS). Mr. Mulcair suggested the paucity of money for seniors was what clinched it for the NDP, comparing the money the Tories had committed in previous budgets for business tax cuts to what was delivered for older Canadians Tuesday.

    So the NDP (or at least Mulcair) believes it is great to reassure upcoming seniors they won't suffer so much for their poor planning, because free money is on its way. AND it (he) believes it is great to maintain as much disincentive as possible to the generation of wealth. And that the dollar-for-dollar comparison is valid in the exact opposite direction to reality, because to it (him), less free money is a "punishment" of seniors and less confiscation of profit is a "gift" to the producers of wealth.

    I have no doubt the above makes perfect sense to the NDP. For the sake of Canada and Canadians, may they never progress beyond third party status.

  4. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

  5. "they won't suffer so much for their poor planning"

    Or maybe:

    They suffer as a result of the following:
    Being disabled.
    Working at Nortel.
    Working at one of the numerous small and mid-size outfits that have folded and left pensioners in the lurch.
    Investing in their future through mutual funds. (Remember 2008?)
    Investing in income trusts. (oops…)

    Or because they spent all their money on stuff like rent and eating.
    Or, more likely, the spouse with the pension died early.

    Care to rephrase?

  6. At 300 million a year, it's roughly equivelant to six years based on the Bloc payoff with the last budget. Didn't think that would be much of a problem, looking at the prededent.

  7. Sure. I'd be happy to rephrase:

    The NDP believes that it is every senior's right to not be poor. Never mind not starving, or not homeless. Not poor. And it is every other Canadian's responsibility, the rich, the middles and the poor, to see to it that the old folks aren't poor. That is just stoopid.

    And poor planning was indeed not the best choice of words. The greying welfare class is becoming a legitimized outcome of prudent fiscal planning according to some advisers and authors ("Don't invest in RRSPs! Your RRIF will mean income, which means income taxes, and which means clawed-back OAS and no GIS! Blow it all now and for god's sake make sure you have next-to-no income in retirement so you can have a free income instead!") You're right: That's not poor planning. That is deliberate dependency.

  8. What I will most certainly NOT rephrase is the objection to the assault on the ordinary English-language meaning of common words perpetrated by Mulcair and his NDP ilk. The assault that dares suggest that raising the income gift to a level somewhat less than these nuts desired is some sort of "attack," whereas declining to confiscate more profit than originally planned is some sort of "gift."

    I know why they do it. They think Canadians can't think straight. Lucky for us, enough can.

  9. Or, more likely, the spouse with the pension died early.

    You call counting on dying before the spouse with the pension dies (presumably in the absence of a surviving spouse provision) particularly good planning?

  10. That's odd. I could swear you had been discussing an election…

  11. The difference between passage and defeat

    For most people, it's between about 30 and 36 inches, standing up. But it really is advisable to be sitting or squatting instead.

  12. About 18% cannot think straight (some of whom simply know they'd personally benefit from the confiscation of other peoples' money).

  13. I was actually discussing ways that one could have been avoided.

  14. I'm too mad to reply to this with any craft or wit.

    I'll simply say that it's clear you've never done a run with your local meals on wheels group, and had conversations with some of the older women who receive this service. This was a generation where the men were the sole breadwinner and made the financial decisions. Most of the poorest seniors are women. Few had any hand in financial planning.

  15. So we are agreed, then. VERY poor planning, indeed.

  16. "Could have taken the $300 million" of an election only works once. "Giving" that same amount EVERY YEAR to "Jack's seniors" just plain doesn't add up as the trade-off you suggested.

  17. Now you're just being an ass.

  18. Now you've changed your comment.

    "the spouse with the pension died early"
    is nothing like your new weasel-words which I will paraphrase as
    'the widow(er) has no idea how to handle the money on his/her own and throws it all away or loses it somehow'

    And you claim to have "craft and wit"? LOL
    And then you claim to be the aggrieved individual in this conversation?

    You are really a piece of work.

  19. My bad. Please enlighten me, the consequences of the retirement strategy you describe is an example of the fruits of wise planning, how, exactly?

    And, while we are on this roll… Jack Layton would have us believe that the simple presence of grey hair is a worthy justification for a free ticket out of poverty, courtesy of Jack but paid for by everybody else. The morality of that stance escapes this ass's comprehension, so your additional help would be greatly appreciated.

  20. It's certainly not this morality: http://www.longlongtimeago.com/llta_fables_antgra

    I'm having trouble understanding it too, as far as I can tell it appears to be some sort of morality where the ordering of a married couples' deaths results in financial rewards. Or maybe it's a morality where the worse your financial planning, the more money you deserve from the state. Or maybe it's a morality in which the results of lazy or poor choices are to be incurred by the young, but once they turn old they get a "get out of poverty free" card. Or maybe it['s a morality in which it's not a poor choice to put all your eggs in one basket, that's just bad luck.

Sign in to comment.