JS Woodsworth is rolling in his grave today


tay
+1
#1
J. S. Woodsworth Born in Ontario but raised in Manitoba, James Shaver Woodsworth (1874–1942), was a Methodist clergyman, social worker, politician, and the first leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation.


Woodsworth started out as a Methodist clergyman in 1896, but had become a social worker in Winnipeg’s North End by 1904. His experience of urban slums convinced him that socialism was the solution to poverty. Despite being fired from his position as a government social researcher in 1917 for being a pacifist and arrested for libel during the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike, Woodsworth’s ideals made him a popular Winnipeg politician. His popularity led to his election as the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre in 1921, a riding that he held until his death.


As a Member of Parliament, Woodsworth consistently campaigned for labour rights, improved social welfare measures and democratic socialism.


Although he failed to make socialism a reality in Canada, he succeeded, in 1926–1927, in persuading Prime Minister Mackenzie King to introduce an old-age pension plan — Canada’s first social welfare legislation — in exchange for providing the votes Mackenzie King needed to stay in power.




Civilization.ca - History of Canadian Medicare - 1914-1929 - J. S. Woodsworth








It's a nightmare vision. A country full of seniors living in poverty and misery.

A country where the old and the poor have no present, and the young have no future.
A nightmare that became even more real today, when the Cons killed an NDP proposal to expand the Canada Pension Plan.
Even though a recent study showed that Canada is the only OECD country where seniors are getting getting poorer, and the government is doing less and less to help them.






Conservatives are losing support among Canadian seniors for refusing to expand the Canada Pension Plan, warns a national seniors group.


On the same day that the Conservative majority voted down an NDP motion calling for CPP expansion, the seniors lobby group CARP released a survey showing Conservative support is slipping among its members.



NDP MP Murray Rankin, who put forward Monday’s motion, said the government’s position is unfortunate given the success of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board at generating high returns at low cost.


“I just find it inexcusable,” he said of the Conservative position, calling the CPP “one of those great success stories in Canada.”
Mr. Rankin noted that it was Mr. Sorenson leading the government’s response and not Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who had urged the provinces and territories in 2010 to support a modest increase to the CPP but was unable to secure enough support.


Liberal MP John McCallum raised Mr. Flaherty’s past comments during Monday’s debate, speculating that the minister “was overruled by his boss,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who Mr. McCallum said has long been a critic of the CPP.


“He does not like the Canada Pension Plan, so I believe that as long as he is the Prime Minister of this country, no time will be the right time for any infinitesimal increase in CPP premiums and benefits,” he said.


Tories vote down CPP expansion as seniors warn of waning support - The Globe and Mail
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+1
#2
North American Christianity has become much more conservative and irrelevant.

It is hard to imagine today's pastors with the same social conscience.
Last edited by Spade; Dec 11th, 2013 at 11:37 AM..
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#3
For the most part seniors are much better off than the young that are somehow expected to not only pay their own way but add to the already better lifestyle of a fast expanding group of seniors that have had their whole working lives to prepare for retirement. Just look at which group owns the $$$1 million plus homes and who pays exorbitant rent for a one bedroom apartment.
 
petros
+1
#4
Ts, wtf?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Ts, wtf?

Read his whole socialist rant.

I should have finished the thought before posting. Seniors as a group do not need more tax dollars. Direct the extra money to those that require assistance. Anyone with a net worth of over $1million does NOT need more government money.
 
petros
#6
A property is an investment not an income. My home's value has increased by 700% does that mean I don't need an income?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A property is an investment not an income. My home's value has increased by 700% does that mean I don't need an income?

Like any investment it can be sold. It is not the duty of taxpayers to protect your kid's inheritance. It is our duty to ensure those in need are protected.
 
petros
#8
Sell then move into an overpriced apartment and waste everything Iq've built up?
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Sell then move into an overpriced apartment and waste everything Iq've built up?

What did you build it up for if not for your retirement?
 
petros
#10
I bought it for a place to live instead of paying somebody else's mortgage with rent.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

For the most part seniors are much better off than the young that are somehow expected to not only pay their own way but add to the already better lifestyle of a fast expanding group of seniors that have had their whole working lives to prepare for retirement. Just look at which group owns the $$$1 million plus homes and who pays exorbitant rent for a one bedroom apartment.


You have that right. Every segment of society is much better off today than they were in the 1920s.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#12
Retirement means different things to different people and not all circumstances are
the same. A base pension situation was needed at that time and place in our over
all history. Is the same thing needed today that is the question of our time.
I think people have to understand the time they were in. The union movement was
in response to the way people were being treated. We went through a period of
relative peace and now some employers especially in the service industry are going
to be under fire. They operate businesses that exploit people. Minimum wage jobs
and the poor subsidize their pension plan. We need to address that. If we the
people need to pay the going rate for power and fuel then the employers need to
pay the going rate for a livable wage.
Not everyone needs the Canada Pension but some do and we should look at that.
The same as everyone should be covered by medicare cause it cheaper for a whole
society in the long run and good health is an investment not an expense.
There are a lot of things that need a look its just that people on both sides of the
equation become hysterical and no one wants to open pandora's box as it were.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

Retirement means different things to different people and not all circumstances are
the same. A base pension situation was needed at that time and place in our over
all history. Is the same thing needed today that is the question of our time.
I think people have to understand the time they were in. The union movement was
in response to the way people were being treated. We went through a period of
relative peace and now some employers especially in the service industry are going
to be under fire. They operate businesses that exploit people. Minimum wage jobs
and the poor subsidize their pension plan. We need to address that. If we the
people need to pay the going rate for power and fuel then the employers need to
pay the going rate for a livable wage.
Not everyone needs the Canada Pension but some do and we should look at that.
The same as everyone should be covered by medicare cause it cheaper for a whole
society in the long run and good health is an investment not an expense.
There are a lot of things that need a look its just that people on both sides of the
equation become hysterical and no one wants to open pandora's box as it were.

I think we should pay more into Canada Pension and nobody with an income of $100,000.00 plus should collect OAS or C.P. for that matter. Some people have to work at three jobs to be able to live. Fast Food crooks, you know the ones, limit the number of hours an employee can work so they can't qualify for benifits. That is theft in any language.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I think we should pay more into Canada Pension and nobody with an income of $100,000.00 plus should collect OAS or C.P. for that matter. Some people have to work at three jobs to be able to live. Fast Food crooks, you know the ones, limit the number of hours an employee can work so they can't qualify for benifits. That is theft in any language.

It is not just income but also assets. When a retired person has a million or so in assets they do not need to live off the taxpayer. There is a limited amount of tax money to go around and it has to be spent wisely. I am not working to support someone else"s extravagant lifestyle. To go along with this I am not real happy about supporting those that squandered their entire working lives and put nothing away for retirement but we are sort of obligated to look after them.

Added thought: SOme of the people I work with are going to be getting over $4G a month in union pension so they really do not need government money either.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Like any investment it can be sold. It is not the duty of taxpayers to protect your kid's inheritance. It is our duty to ensure those in need are protected.

CPP does not come out of taxes. People pay into it all their lives and the money is invested, just like any other pension plan. CPP is paid out of the interest earned by the investments. Where do you get the idea that it is your tax dollars paying for CPP?

The vast majority of seniors are not rich. Only a very small percentage are. many are working at Walmart just to stay alive.

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube



It is not that much different in Canada.
Last edited by Cliffy; Dec 11th, 2013 at 04:14 PM..
 
Colpy
Conservative
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

North American Christianity has become much more conservative and irrelevant.

It is hard to imagine today's pastors with the same social conscience.

Although I think that your statement was way too broad, I agree with the basic premise.

I prefer my pastors with a hard core social conscience...............
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It is not just income but also assets. When a retired person has a million or so in assets they do not need to live off the taxpayer. There is a limited amount of tax money to go around and it has to be spent wisely. I am not working to support someone else"s extravagant lifestyle. To go along with this I am not real happy about supporting those that squandered their entire working lives and put nothing away for retirement but we are sort of obligated to look after them.

Added thought: SOme of the people I work with are going to be getting over $4G a month in union pension so they really do not need government money either.


I think the Gov't. already has a system in place to deal with the wealthy who also collect a pension(s), it's a higher tax rate for the top dollars and otherwise "clawing back".
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It is not just income but also assets. When a retired person has a million or so in assets they do not need to live off the taxpayer. There is a limited amount of tax money to go around and it has to be spent wisely. I am not working to support someone else"s extravagant lifestyle. To go along with this I am not real happy about supporting those that squandered their entire working lives and put nothing away for retirement but we are sort of obligated to look after them.

Added thought: SOme of the people I work with are going to be getting over $4G a month in union pension so they really do not need government money either.

You sound exactly like one of the Occupy fools.
 
Zipperfish
No Party Affiliation
+2
#19  Top Rated Post
Take the homeless and feed them to the hungry. Problem solved. That's getting two birds stoned at once.

You're welcome.
 
tay
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

For the most part seniors are much better off than the young that are somehow expected to not only pay their own way but add to the already better lifestyle of a fast expanding group of seniors that have had their whole working lives to prepare for retirement. Just look at which group owns the $$$1 million plus homes and who pays exorbitant rent for a one bedroom apartment.



Based on the article it seems the present pensioners are thinking of the future ones which is nice to see...........



Quote:

Ms. Eng said seniors feel strongly about the issue even though any changes to the CPP would be phased in and would not affect current seniors.

 

Similar Threads

22
Who's better: Rolling Stones or Beatles?
by BigLou | Feb 25th, 2010
18
McCain and Rolling Thunder
by JBeee | Oct 16th, 2008
5
Rolling Memorial
by manda | Jul 23rd, 2005
no new posts