Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Actually, he's done a pretty great job with the pandemic. That's why his approval is higher than it was during the last election.

Also, The leader of the party has contracted Coronavirus. Somehow I doubt he's wanting to rush out and campaign right now.

Seriously. Read the room.

   

Most Canadians want to be able to keep food in their fridge and the lights on, but you want to force them to go out and vote because Trudeau has been spending alot of money to help millions keep their lights on because of the WE scandal?

Does he deserve to be judged for this? Yes, but there is a time and a place... a Pandemic is neither the time nor the place.

You shall learn the meaning of Pyrrhic Victory. You may cause the Liberals to fall, but I feel the collective rage for this careless act will ultimately torpedo the Conservatives.

Canada is moving away from her Conservative roots, for better or for worse.

   

There is a difference between it being required by law and actively seeking it less than a year after the last one. It's a horrible idea. I honestly can't think of a more stupid suggestion.

   

There's two by-elections in Toronto this October.

   

If Trudeau is forced to call an election right now, he'll certainly win and with probably more seats than he has now... is that what you want?

   

Again, Constitutionally Required.

Actually, call the election... I'll laugh when the Liberals get back in, or even better; a Dipper Majority. LOL!

   

That's what everyone said during the Chretien/Martin era, and then....



-J.

   

Apples to Oranges. There was no Pandemic that nation was facing.

   

Nor the shit show to the south to show what a move to the far right is causing.

   

Chretien/Martin weren’t that different from Harper. All those governments were more similar than they were different. And their shared ideology of tax cuts and permanent austerity is all widely rejected now

   

Let's start low, like an UBI of $500 per month, because it's ridiculous to even think that it would be anywhere as much as the $2000 that was given out for CERB:

- the really poor-off can put it towards their most pressing needs of rent & food
- those employed and clearing $1500 to 2000 per month can use it to keep their utility bills clear, greatly reducing the number of horror stories from service disconnections and allowing them to use their other income to safely cover their rent & food basics
- those employed in the $2500 to 4000 per month range can use it for anything they want, even on buying a new vehicle, which is a net gain to the economy because spending it keeps stores open and other people employed; if they opt to use it for mortgage payments then the financial sector is strengthened by the great reduction in defaults that would occur
- the fortunate ones in the $5000 per month and upwards can do anything they want with it; spending it helps the economy on every level, putting it into their savings/RRSP's helps the financial sector again, or if they opt to give it to charity then they're helping others plus themselves with the tax credit available for contributions

All this, and a hundred different other positive outcomes, can easily be created from a bare-bones UBI of only $500 per month. Increase that to say $1000 and the benefits double even more. The question rapidly becomes not why we don't have one, but more why wasn't something like this put into place as the largest national social program a long time ago.

And why are we even wasting time talking about the 1 or 2% of truly broken people who will spend their UBI on drugs or alcohol when the other 98% of recipients will use it to both cover their own basics and at the same time further power the overall economic cycle from the extra spending ability it will give them? Are we really that determined to play moral scolds to the point that nearly everyone remains permanently denied a powerful life-saving/life-sustaining benefit just so we can play moralists towards those at the very bottom rung of the ladder? C'mon, dammit, think better than that.

   

Actually a UBI of $500 a month is ridiculous.
Think about it, it would add yet another layer of bureaucracy and solve none of the basic issues at all.
You know what they'd do, cut welfare and disabilities by $500 a month, keep 100% of the staff on and make sure the downtrodden stay that way.
It could be $2000 a month and 'make all boats float up' but that would require majpr changes like I stated and we know that no party has the balls to do that.
It will just be more talk and hot air.

   

The model proposed at the link I posted earlier is actually 2 components: $500 for all Canadians unconditional so even paid to millionaires, plus those earning leas than $2k per month are topped up to that amount with employment earnings clawed back from the top-up at 50%. Not sure I agree with the clawback formula though. They should let you keep a little more of it

   

Good talk on UBI here:

   

Seen too much of that shit my whole life. Make $28,000 you get MSP free, dental free, daycare subsidies, housing assistance.
Make $28,001 and you get dick shit.
Too complex and just another exercise for the judgy-pants to exclude people.
You want economic stimulus to be part of the package, not just survival.

My biggest gripe about the NDP is the buggers actually think $24,000 is a lot of money, MOF they spend so much time and energy over the guy living under the bridge they completely forgot their working class roots.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next