Printable View
Who wants a basic income lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by greatwhite
Who has only the basic?
From phones to cable, insurance, YouTube, Amazon prime basic is not good aways need a upgrade.
How about basic for the welfare
And elite for the ones that has worked for decades [emoji16].
Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk
We would be far better off with a Conservative government. Trudeau has done nothing except hand out money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
We only need to look south to see how the left is dealing with Covid. Now that Biden is the president elect yesterday they had 180,000 new cases and 2600+ dead. So far covid in the USA is the worst its been and now its Bidens fault, and whats he doing about it?
I’m confused, the flu vaccine I received last week was produced in Canada. Why can’t that same company produce Covid19 vaccines here in Canada?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Trudeau said he secured millions of vaccines for Canada but the other countries come first because they can produce them and we cannot.
All I know is when the recession in 2007 hit Canada cane through it pretty good under a Conservative government.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lmao. ( Hot air lads, all of it.) How original coming from general blowhard himself!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
The issue is our present welfare system is a way of life not 'temporary' assistance while being re-trained or re-educated. I see 2nd and 3rd generation of families playing the system to their advantage. Basic income is a way for those that are deemed unemployable to live better by doing nothing to contribute to society. IMHO you should prove you have done something to better yourself BEFORE you get your gov't cheque.......training, applied for jobs, or volunteering.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
News flash but having a cell phone, an ebike, a taxi cab to the grocery store, booze, and bingo's are NOT a basic necessity.
Maybe if you researched the FACTS before writing your opinion might be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauro
"How does this compare to the Harper government’s fiscal record? In 2006-07, the Conservatives inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion — which they turned into a deficit of $5.8 billion within two years.
Since then, they have been in deficit each and every year. In 2009-10, the deficit reached its peak of 3.5 per cent of GDP. They are desperate now to show a surplus in 2015-16 — one surplus in nine years. Since Harper was elected, the federal debt has increased by over $150 billion, wiping out the reduction in federal debt achieved under Chretien and Martin. Not much to boast about there.
https://ipolitics.ca/2015/04/19/no-m...a-catastrophe/
The big problem is enforcing your will on these types of people.Mike Harris decided he would cut the welfare roles way back with his common sense revolution.Your welfare/criminal class care not,instead of breaking into 20 cars a night in the downtown core they broke into 40 cars.Loose change,computers,phones, all off to the second hand stores.Instead of boosting 2 delivery trucks a day they boosted 5.You can't force anybody to work in or out of jail,do you really want some of these people volunteering,just asking to get ripped off.Any programme you want to make up they will figure a way around it with the assistance of social workers, case workers and legal aid lawyers.If you mess with them to much you will probably get sued.Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
again...the inconvenient truth of the Harper Government during the Global recession..
Quote:
While the Canadian economy during the Harper government years worsened on most aggregate measures relative to 1984-2005, it did quite well relative to foreign advanced economies. While many of these economies faced severe internal problems such as broken financial systems and a collapse of their housing markets, the Canadian economy essentially had to cope only with weak external demand. As a result, not only was the 2008-09 recession less severe in Canada than in most other advanced economies, but also the recovery in Canada was stronger. Moreover, employment growth in Canada over 2006-15 was far stronger than in the US and the other advanced economies.
Quote:
Finally, in contrast with 1984-2005, the Harper government years witnessed significant progress in real disposable income (after-tax personal income less inflation) per capita in Canada relative to the US. In fact, not only was the growth rate of real disposable income per capita in Canada double the rate in the US over 2006-15, it was also much faster than over the Mulroney-Chrétien-Martin years as a whole in Canada.
Quote:
That real disposable income growth increased during the Harper years was due to several factors: the household share of net national income rose instead of declining as during 1984-2005; the price of consumption increased less rapidly than the price of final domestic demand rather than rising more rapidly as during 1984-2005; and the tax and transfer system withdrew funds from households at a lesser rate than during 1984-2005. In addition, net investment income from abroad made a positive rather than a negative contribution to real income growth during the Harper years.
from: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...-harper-years/Quote:
The Harper government promised a low-tax, balanced-budget plan that could grow jobs and increase output and income. The government delivered better per capita real disposable income growth than its predecessors, but worse employment and output growth. And this record was determined largely by factors other than federal policy. The Harper government’s economic policies during 2006-15 met the objective of a strengthened fiscal position without sacrificing the goal of income redistribution, but had decidedly less success in meeting the goal of jobs and growth. In the end, a verdict on the degree of success of the Harper government’s economic policies hinges on the relative values that one attributes to the various economic objectives. In our own judgment, after 2010 the Harper government unduly sacrificed growth in order to improve a debt position that was already solid.
..the inconvenient truth about the Welfare cuts under the Harris government:
Quote:
The Liberal 1995–96 federal budget eliminated the CAP and replaced it with the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), which would later be divided into the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) and the Canada Social Transfer (CST). The CHST not only eliminated four of CAP’s five conditions on funding, it cut approximately $7 billion from the federal government’s yearly transfers to provinces. In effect, the 1995–96 budget signaled the federal government was stepping back from provincial social policy. Provinces would have fewer federal dollars to put toward their social programs, but they would also have fewer federal standards with which to comply. This is the model upon which the CST is currently based.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...ntReview_0.pdfQuote:
Since taking office in the spring of 1995, the Ontario government has embarked on a very ambitious welfare reform program. Indeed, cutting the rewards of welfare by 21 percent was one of the Harris government’s first legislative acts (Ontario, Cabinet Office Communications 1995). Effective October 1, 1995, the Ontario government cut $500 million from welfare spending in its first year by lowering welfare benefits to a level 10 percent above the average of the nine other provinces (Harris 1997). These savings were achieved by cutting benefits per person and by imposing stricter limitations on eligibility. At a first pass, this strategy appears to be working. Within one month of cutting benefits, the number of Ontarians dependent on welfare declined by 24,000 (Sabatini 1996). Two years later, as many as 185,000 Ontarians had been removed from the welfare rolls (Globe and Mai
Although the rewards of welfare have been cut significantly, Ontario’s welfare benefit levels are still 10 percent higher than the average of the other nine provinces. Indeed, by any absolute standard, they are still extremely generous. Once taxes and benefits are accounted for, people on social assistance are paid an implied wage of $9.21 per hour, or $2.36 in excess of the provincial minimum wage (Walker and Emes 1996). If individuals—in particular young and unskilled workers—are to be induced to return to the labour market, welfare
Overall, the Harris government deserves credit for reversing the trend of ever-increasing welfare payments in Ontario. For making the first, bold effort to reform welfare in a generation, the Harris government deserves a B for its social policies.
benefits must not be in excess of what these individuals could earn if they were to accept employment in the labour market.
Saw this from the Frasier Institute written during Harris's Government. Indeed Welfare becomes 'intergenerational' when there is no motivation to work. The Liberals screamed the loudest when cuts were made to social services back in the 90's but the reality was they were necessary due to the cuts from the Federal Government under Jean Chrétien.Quote:
Originally Posted by 410001661
But as a result, magically, once the tap was closed a bit and a lot of those who were unnecessarily on welfare went back to work.
Quote:
Today, state intervention in both the economic and non-economic affairs of private citizens is pervasive. The modern welfare state is now expected to provide welfare for the poor, unemployment assistance and job training for those who cannot find work, pensions and old age benefits for the elderly, education for the young, and universal health care for everyone. No person, from cradle to grave, is left unaffected by the extensive social assistance of the modern welfare state.
Trimming welfare caseloads should also address another problem associated with social assistance—“duration dependence.” One unfortunate dynamic economic consequence of welfare is that the longer one stays on social insurance, the less likely one is to find gainful employment (OECD 1994a). This happens because human capital tends to deteriorate when not in use. Another dynamic concern is “intergenerational dependence.” Evidence from the United States suggests that children raised in families that receive welfare are three times more likely to be on welfare when they become adults than children whose parents do not receive welfare (Hill and O’Neil 1990). If the purpose of welfare is to help individuals lift themselves and their children from poverty to self sufficiency, intergenerational dependence is a sure signal that the welfare system is failing in its most important
Quote:
Within one month of cutting benefits, the number of Ontarians dependent on welfare declined by 24,000 (Sabatini 1996). Two years later, as many as 185,000 Ontarians had been removed from the welfare rolls (Globe and Mail 1997g).