1) Kate.
...this is the reality of the welfare state. It was setup to help the poor and marginalized. In practice it aids the unscrupulous and the skillful. Elizabeth May was a rich white liberal who had ordinary working class stiffs subsidizing her youthful lifestyle choice. Then she went off to law school and had many of those same stiffs subsidize her education. Because Lizzy is a special girl who knew how to milk the system.What of the thrifty, the diligent and responsible? In modern Canada we call those people suckers.
She fits right in with the "Entitled to their Entitlements" ilk.
She's the tide's foundation greatest achievement. Finally, a foreign plant inside our parliament agitating for the various terror groups they front.
She apparently thinks she can market her astounding resemblance to our national animal, the beaver, into a full time MP position, then wait like a spider till, a lefty appoints her to the Senate.
The name should be changed the Maritime Province Vote Buying Income Supplement fund.
"keep the Gravy Train running, or we will vote for the Party that will keep the Gravy Train chugging along"
Because it sure isn't an insurance system.
Because they believe they are entitled to what they believe are their entitlements.
Lips, meet public teat.
I don't like progressive policies or Green politics but I do understand May's reaction. I'd have to say the vast majority of people (right and left) do not make the connection between entitlements and ripping off fellow citizens. They see it as government money or their money being returned to them - no matter how unbalanced the ratio between contributions and benefits received. I do find the rationalizations and tantrums used to justify those benefits as an excellent reason for governments to stop making new promises.
"In practice it aids the unscrupulous and the skillful."
Skillful? I suggest 'cunning' would be a more fitting word.
Those same stiffs also subsidized the education of the working poor, the middle class, the upper class and the social elite. Where's your point?
Of course there will be a great deal of fuss and bother from these changes to EI, but then weaning always involves that...
Is this the family restaurant that was cited for water pollution violations in the 1970s?
From Wiki: May was born in Hartford, Connecticut ... Her mother was a prominent anti-nuclear activist and one of the original founders of the peace group SANE, while her father was Assistant Vice President of Aetna Life and Casualty. May's godfather was actor Cliff Robertson [who, along with his wife Dina Merrill, was a patrician who lived a very upper crust lifestyle].
May attended Renbrook School and the prestigious Miss Porter's School in Farmington, Connecticut. Her family was rooted in the Welsh Congregationalist tradition of free thinking on religious beliefs.
Why would the young Miss May need to collect EI, then Unemployment Insurance? Her daddy was rich -- 'not sure if her mom was good-looking... -- and she would have had tons of connections if she'd wanted to work.
The part about her family being free-thinking Welsh Congregationalists has me worried. She's taking a degree in theology to become an Anglican priest at a time when the Anglican Church in Canada needs fewer free thinkers, not more.
One summer, when my family and I were staying in Cape Breton, we had lunch in Miss May's family's restaurant, which was a boat on the shore! I don't remember the food but the Cape Breton scenery, como siempre, was lovely.
batb, May is just another of those entitled Yanks who come here for the free money.
A good waitress can always find a job,I would bet May never even looked for a job after the family business laid her off.
Well, she's hit the top government job ,if she can fool enough of us in 2015,she's set for life!
Quite a future,
All them Greens,
Voting for The Pogey Queen.
Speaking of education subsidized by the public:
ANNA-MARIE Janzen knew her degree in peace and conflict-resolution studies wasn't the most practical major she could pursue. However, she felt it was more important to pursue a degree that catered to her own interests than one that was based on the job market.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/got-the-degree-now-what-154680055.html
"What of the thrifty, the diligent and responsible? In modern Canada we call those people suckers" - Publius
Yes indeed, and that is exactly how europe started going down the tubes.
And it draws those to your shores who want to benefit, not so much those who want to perform and contribute.
Which means higher taxes for the suckers, uh, I mean the previous Canadians. Oh crap that is non-pc to notice as well.
Better go work some overtime, so I can provide some bogus end product of the Refugee Industrial Complex with better healthcare coverage than you and I get.
Publius skewers the big fat target :-)
Mani Moose
"The employment rate for adults aged 25 to 64 with some form of post-secondary education is 82 per cent, while the rate for those without is 55 per cent."
This would suggest that the Canadian unemployment rate for people over 24 without a University degree is 45% ???
Jamie MacMaster at May 28, 2012 6:05 PM
"The Pogey Queen". Yes, I like it - it will stick.
Mani Moose
I think I see my interpretation problem(s)
a) It's a Manitoba stat, not Canadian.
b) "some sort of post-secondary education" could mean almost any type of training.
c) The demographic without post secondary education is probably skewed heavily to the higher ages, many of whom may be retired
May the gift that keeps on giving.
May the gift that keeps on giving.
sew the water buffalo to a flag and run it up the post, call it the BB Flag (beaver b*tch )
I wonder if Elizabeth May is Cherokee?
Acually the real grinch in this overly simplistic allegory are the liberal and tory parties who sat on top of billion dollar EI surpluses who never returned this money to people in the plan as either benifits,rebates or programs - as per the legislation.
Acually the real grinch in this overly simplistic allegory are the liberal and tory parties who sat on top of billion dollar EI surpluses who never returned this money to people in the plan as either benifits,rebates or programs - as per the legislation.
I'm going to assume the rules were different in the 70's bc employment bw related persons is not insurable under EI: you don't collect a benefit or pay premiums.
"What of the thrifty, the diligent and responsible? In modern Canada we call those people suckers."
In modern Canada ... the parasites call THOSE people suckers.
THOSE people ... can call themselves useful and honourable. They can hold their heads up and walk with a straight spine. They cann also teach their children to do the same.
For the left ... none of that.
I might get a bit tired of listening to the incessant drip from the left ... but I never give the cretins any credence.
Little Nel: I think you may find that rule applies only to unincorporated businesses. How about the fisherman who, as captain, lays off one offspring at the same time he hires the next. Then repeats the process over and over.
Little Nel is right even for incorporated businesses, according to my accountant. CRA audited my son's tax return in 2010 and they apparently agreed.
In the 1970's I objected to paying for UIC when I was working as a teaching assistant. I didn't have a choice and, so, when university finished I applied for UIC and got the munificent sum of $240/month for a couple of months.
In order to collect this massive amount of money I had to attend an early morning meeting in a distant part of Ottawa and cycled there at record speed as I don't do mornings well. I must have stood out as the shirtless hippy in ragged shorts in a room full of suits. It was hot and muggy outside and I was sweating very profusely and had to request several copies of forms to fill out which were quickly soaked until I figured out a way of writing with most of the sweat dripping from my arms onto the floor. There didn't seem to be any job openings for organic chemistry teaching assistants that summer and I never heard from UIC again.
I still think it was appropriate for me to collect UI then as I was forced to pay into the plan. I indicated my willingness to forgo the option of collecting UIC benefits if I could keep the $8/month UIC was extorting from me. Now that I'm self employed, I no longer have to deal with UIC.
What pisses me off most about programs like UIC is that they're compulsory. I resent having to pay benefits to east coast lazy "fishermen" and Lizzy the morbidly obese beaver. Thus, I worked out a way to get back the money I'd had stolen from me by this program.
She fits right in with the "Entitled to their Entitlements"
,
Yes, she does, just like Shaidle, Catherine McMillan, spike and kulak and a host of sda freeloaders and moochers in good standing. The only difference being, she's not a hypocrite about it. That's the preserve of the right wing phony.
Kathy Shaidle lives in the Big Smoke. How is she a Western farmer welfare bum?
BTW a fellow who shares your mental state mailed a foot addressed to "the Conservative Party" yesterday.