Canadian Elections!

[Valka D'Ur]

Again, how is any of this relevant?

The policy is to give out enough to dollars to lift a certain number people out of poverty, and targeting people most likely to vote.

You're claiming they shouldn't spend the dollars on the people who need it most.

I've explained why it's relevant. It's sad if a kid has to rely on the Christmas Bureau for a new toy at Christmas, and the generosity of other social agencies that do the best they can. I've seen Freecycle requests cross my desk begging for any second-hand things to help out a kid - clothes, school supplies, etc., but the fact is that these are not kids who run the risk of being hospitalized because of low funding for something like OXYGEN.

You have not said exactly why these kids need the money more than anyone else. Are they starving? Living on the street? What is the precise nature of the problem?

After all the times I've asked and you've refused to answer, it's a pretty safe bet that you don't actually know any senior citizens who are trying to live on GIS/OAS, so your claim that these low-income seniors are wealthy is from a position of willful ignorance.

As for "most likely to vote" - why aren't you out volunteering for the party of your choice, then, and going doorknocking to get the parents of these poverty-stricken children to get out and vote? It's like Rick Mercer said in one of his most famous Rants some years ago (addressed to university students, but the advice is still applicable): "If you want the government to pay attention to you, you have to get out and vote so you get noticed and they'll have to pay attention to you."

If these parents don't vote because they don't know where to vote, tell them how to find that out. If they can't get to the polling station because of no transportation, offer to drive them or help them access the services that any credible local party organization should provide: volunteers to drive them to the polling station. If they're working during polling hours, remind them that BY LAW, their employers are obligated to give them THREE CONSECUTIVE HOURS off to vote. Most people don't need that long, but it's still one of the rights a voter has. Make sure people know that if they can't vote on election day, they can vote in the advance poll or by Special Ballot.

In short, ranting here will not help these poverty-stricken children. Getting out there in your own riding and offering to help the parents will do much more.

I'm not ranting, I'm helpfully explaining.

No, you're just ranting, and ignoring pertinent questions put to you. Telling me that my 80-year-old father's medical needs are like subsidizing a luxury snowmobile owner is not helpful. It's offensive.

Zelig, the idea that the average poor senior is better off than the average poor young person is laughable on the face of it. Yhe average poor young person is healthy, fit for work and thus has a shot of getting out of their poor status The average poor elderly does not. Yes, the Elderly receive more help, because they need it more. It's for the same reason the infirm have an easier time than fit and healthy people getting into welfare - because they need the help more than others.

You're not helpfully explaining.You are making a populist appeal to the young by trying to portray support given to another group as an attack on the young. It's demagogy 101.

Exactly. I'm not ecstatic to see kids living in poverty, and it would be great if all low-income people could be helped. But to vilify one demographic just because it's not the demographic you favor is just nasty.

I still don't see how it's justifiable to pass up on poverty relief someone younger who is in greater need at the present time. If they manage to pull themselves up out of poverty, then great, you've freed up some money to help another person!

Why are they in greater need at the present time? Are you talking about poor kids in general, or do you have specific kids in mind who have fallen through the cracks in some way? I know how that is, since it happened to my dad and me. I know first-hand how humiliating it is to have to register at the food bank because there's no other way, I know what it's like to have to wear my winter coat to bed because the heating bill couldn't be paid, and I still remember my doctor lecturing me for not taking the medication I couldn't afford to buy.

They plan is basically "free money!" If they're going to do that, better off with a guaranteed minimum income.

I don't see how you can not believe that Mulcair's plan is pandering to those who are more likely to vote.

Then read the rest of my post and do your part to help the parents of these children vote for whoever they think will actually help them.

It's not a bad thing that seniors tend to vote. They (and I) come from generations that see it as a citizen's duty and opportunity to have our say in who forms the government. Women in particular, I think, are basically spitting on those who fought for women's rights when they don't bother to vote. It's a crime against the country (or should be) that the Chief Electoral Officer is no longer allowed to promote the act of voting. If young people were taught that voting at age 18 is more important than being legally allowed to buy alcohol, maybe more younger people would become lifelong voters.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Still waiting for some answers, Zelig...

But in the meantime, yesterday I forewent my soap opera to follow the story of the federal scientist who was put on "leave" because he wrote and performed a song critical of Stephen Harper. Tony Turner has become something of a folk hero now:


Link to video.


There's another protest song as well, that one of the CBC commenters linked to:


Link to video.


These, in addition to the "Heave Steve" video I posted some time back, tells me that people are more engaged with this election than they have been in the last 10 years.

 

[Zelig]

Still waiting for some answers, Zelig...

On vacation in Ottawa, you'll note I don't have any other posts in the past couple days.

I've explained why it's relevant.

Anecdotes aren't relevant to policy.

As for "most likely to vote" - why aren't you out volunteering for the party of your choice, then, and going doorknocking to get the parents of these poverty-stricken children to get out and vote?

Well:

a) As I've mentioned, I don't like any of the current parties, and
b) Not efficient for me to volunteer door-knocking time, better off donating money, or writing.

Telling me that my 80-year-old father's medical needs are like subsidizing a luxury snowmobile owner is not helpful. It's offensive.

Medical needs already have an appropriate place to allocate funding in order to get coverage - the healthcare system. Using age as a discriminator screws over anyone <65 with medical needs. (And still benefits seniors without medical problems.)

Exactly. I'm not ecstatic to see kids living in poverty, and it would be great if all low-income people could be helped. But to vilify one demographic just because it's not the demographic you favor is just nasty.

Wanting non-discriminatory treatment for all demographics is hardly "vilifying one demographic".

Why are they in greater need at the present time? Are you talking about poor kids in general, or do you have specific kids in mind who have fallen through the cracks in some way? I know how that is, since it happened to my dad and me. I know first-hand how humiliating it is to have to register at the food bank because there's no other way, I know what it's like to have to wear my winter coat to bed because the heating bill couldn't be paid, and I still remember my doctor lecturing me for not taking the medication I couldn't afford to buy.

I'm saying if you take the say 100 people who are most in need, they're not all going to be seniors. Maybe 80 are, and 10 are children. But because you're only helping out seniors, you need to pass up on those 20 others (including the 10 children) to help out some more seniors instead.

It's not a bad thing that seniors tend to vote.

It's certainly not bad for seniors, since their interests are over-represented at the expense of others.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

On vacation in Ottawa, you'll note I don't have any other posts in the past couple days.

I don't live on this forum and I certainly don't monitor your posting history. Most of my time lately has been spent doing RL stuff and monitoring the CBC.ca threads where I'm active. It takes time to read through over 4000 posts per story.

Anecdotes aren't relevant to policy.

Without people telling what has happened or is happening to them, policy will not change for the better. If people don't complain, TPTB assume that everything is just fine.

So if you want these "poverty stricken children" you're so worried about to be taken care of, how about saying why this is something that bothers you so much? If I find it something that either outrages me or tugs my heartstrings, I just might be inclined to write about it to the relevant politicians. I won't expect any answers from anyone but the Green Party, but you never know what could happen.

Well:

a) As I've mentioned, I don't like any of the current parties, and
b) Not efficient for me to volunteer door-knocking time, better off donating money, or writing.

Well:

a) So what? I loathe the Conservative Reform-Alliance Party (yes, I know they're going by the alias "Conservative Party of Canada" but we all know what they really are), but that didn't stop me from writing to them. I did quickly learn that Earl Dreeshen's secretary thinks that it's enough for her to send a mealy-mouthed email and expect me to be satisfied, and she got huffy when I said (politely) that I would prefer to communicate with Dreeshen himself since he was the one who could answer my questions.

b) No, don't bother volunteering. Perish the thought of expending energy and time without getting paid for it, right? Who do you donate the money to, then, since it's obviously not any of the parties (since you don't like any of them)? As for writing, I've seen you do a lot of writing here, comparing my father to a luxury snowmobile, but what writing have you done that will actually help these poverty stricken children? Seems rather inefficient to confine your complaints to the off-topic section of a computer gaming forum, rather than talking directly to the RL people you're upset about.

And here's a c) for you: Since you don't like any of the parties, why don't you form your own? Or run for office yourself as an Independent? (sometimes Independent candidates do get elected) That way you'd have a way to address this issue to a wider audience.

Medical needs already have an appropriate place to allocate funding in order to get coverage - the healthcare system. Using age as a discriminator screws over anyone <65 with medical needs. (And still benefits seniors without medical problems.)

Most seniors do have medical problems, or they're taking care of a spouse with medical problems. And it's entirely possible for a 60⁺-year-old senior to be responsible for taking care of an 85-year-old parent who is likely afflicted with Alzheimers (which is what happened to my dad).

On the flip side, I do recall the case of a young woman who had a kind of cancer that would respond to a medication that was covered for seniors but not for her because it was a cancer that is extremely rare in younger people. She was informed that she'd be covered when she turned 65. Problem was, she couldn't afford to buy the drugs (that cost $several thousand/month), and she would have been long-dead for years before reaching age 65. So she took her case to the Human Rights Commission and sued on the basis of age discrimination... and won. Her coverage was approved.

But even so, this is not sufficient reason to get angry at Thomas Mulcair for the reasons you've given.

Wanting non-discriminatory treatment for all demographics is hardly "vilifying one demographic".

Let's review this conversation:

Which NDP ideas do you find frightening?

Pretty much all of their spending plans are bad.

Their current front-page pledge to give more money to seniors is particularly ridiculous, the government already spends over $45k/year on people over 65 (vs. <$12k/year on people under 45), while seniors are higher-income and wealthier than ever, both nominally, and relative to younger people.

It's transparent vote-buying of an easy-to-target high-voting demographic.

I hope you're not saying that low-income senior citizens whose only income is GIS/OAS receive over $45,000/year. That's absolute BS.

Let's look at some figures for a single senior citizen whose only income is GIS/OAS (these are current to September 2015):

GIS: $765.93/month
OAS: $564.87/month

That's a total of $1330.80/month, which works out to $15,969.60/year.

Compare that to a single AISH recipient (I assume you know what that stands for, but if not, it means Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped):

$1588.00/month, for a total of $19,056.00/year.

Seniors do not get AISH. Once an AISH recipient turns 65, they're moved to the GIS/OAS program that pays considerably less per month. Plus, there are things covered by AISH that are not covered for seniors. For example, my father has to pay prescription costs that an AISH recipient does not have to pay.

So are you seriously going to sit there and carry on about TEH EVUL SENIORS who are all wealthy (even the poverty-level ones) and rant about the fact that these people are the demographic in this country most likely to vote???

In short, yes, you are vilifying one demographic, just because they vote. If you want the kids to be treated better, get their parents to become another demographic that votes. I've worked enough polling stations to know that this is a demographic that doesn't vote anywhere near as much as older people, for whatever reasons they may have that include apathy, ignorance of the issues and even the basics of how to vote, lack of ease in getting to the polling station, and so on. It was so damned frustrating the year that I was a revising agent for the voters' list, trudging up and down all those apartment building stairs, interviewing people who I pretty much knew would never show up to the polls.

But I just saw the article on CBC about Mulcair's promise to increase the GIS for seniors and to move the OAS age requirement from 67 back to 65.

Is this what you're complaining about? People like my father actually getting enough to live on so he's not denied some of the things he needs because he can't afford it?

Yes, I'm absolutely, legitimately complaining about that.

GIS/OAS and whatever are just details to specifically target seniors, as opposed to young people in poverty. If Mulcair cared about people in poverty, he'd spend the same money on the poorest people who most need the support, rather than the group of poor people most likely to vote for him, and who are part of the wealthiest group of people in the history of the country.

It's like the governor of Mississippi announcing a plan to "end white poverty".

I have no idea why you started in about white poverty in Mississippi. All that did was sidetrack the issue away from what's really relevant.

Mulcair's geritocracy is a lot like Harper's snowmobile subsidies.

So all those cheques people got for their kids a short while ago wasn't just blatant vote-buying from Harper? Of course it was. Were children in poverty excluded from that? No, they were not.

Dollars for seniors is exactly like dollars for snowmobiles, it's straight-up vote-buying.

This is basically what it all boils down to for you, as I see it: Seniors vote. Children don't (some probably would, if the voting age were lowered to 16 - which is something I'm in favor of). So if it's just the fact that the money is being given to voters, why the hell aren't you ranting about the Universal Child Care Benefit that was just given to EVERY PARENT IN THE COUNTRY with at least one child 17 years or younger?

Talk about blatant vote-buying... all this was going on at exactly the time when those anti-Trudeau/Mulcair attack ads were saturating the TV channels, while the Conservatives were madly campaigning with taxpayers' money while pretending they weren't.

You're ranting about seniors who genuinely do live in poverty, some of who have the unmitigated gall to vote, vs. parents from a diverse set of income brackets who have a much greater opportunity to vote than some of these seniors do. I've already explained why these upper-income people really have no excuse for not voting, and if you're so damn concerned about the low-income parents and their children, why don't you get off your self-entitled anatomy and help them vote? Put your time and energy where your online mouth is - you're complaining about seniors being a demographic that votes, so how about helping low-income parents to become a demographic that votes?

I did note that Mulcair and his people flat-out told people who decided they either didn't need or want that UCCB money to "donate it to the NDP"... and that's something that grated with me. He should have said to donate it to a low-income child/family-related charity... such as propping up a fund for subsidized housing, public transit, the local food bank, or the local Christmas Bureau. Even Habitat for Humanity would have been a respectable option, or paying for library cards for low-income families (some libraries charge to borrow stuff and use the computers).

So I get that Mulcair hasn't exactly had his brain in gear when it comes to low-income families. But what I object to is your blatant vilification of his wanting to increase the amount low-income seniors get "because they vote." That's not a good enough reason, because there's no reason why the kids' parents can't vote, as well.

What are these kids not getting that you're so incensed about, and why are you being so obnoxious as to compare poverty-stricken seniors to toys for rich people (fancy snowmobiles)?

<snip>

If these poverty-stricken children are living on the street and eating at soup kitchens, living in the kind of 'welfare motel' I've seen on the news, or in other similar circumstances, I'd agree that something needs to be done about that.

It should not be "either/or" in an ideal world. So why are you ranting at me about it, instead of ranting at Thomas Mulcair? Have you emailed him yet?

Still waiting for you to answer me about the precise issue these kids are facing. What income level do people have to have for you to consider them to be living in poverty? What housing conditions? Transportation situation? What about recreational opportunities? School extras (such as field trips)?

You've said you prefer to write (cheques and posts on this forum, since you haven't indicated that you write anything else). If you're so angry at Mulcair, why don't you let him know via email, Twitter, and Facebook?

The policy is to give out enough to dollars to lift a certain number people out of poverty, and targeting people most likely to vote.

You're claiming they shouldn't spend the dollars on the people who need it most.

And at this point Oda Nobunaga posted this very sensible comment:

Zelig, the idea that the average poor senior is better off than the average poor young person is laughable on the face of it. Yhe average poor young person is healthy, fit for work and thus has a shot of getting out of their poor status The average poor elderly does not. Yes, the Elderly receive more help, because they need it more. It's for the same reason the infirm have an easier time than fit and healthy people getting into welfare - because they need the help more than others.

You're not helpfully explaining.You are making a populist appeal to the young by trying to portray support given to another group as an attack on the young. It's demagogy 101.

Oda Nobunaga is correct. While seniors are not lazy people, for the most part, and many of them do still work as much as they can even if it's a volunteer position rather than a paid position, the fact is that many of them are simply not physically or mentally able to take advantage of jobs or education opportunities like young adults and children can. And keep in mind that I spent the vast majority of my life around seniors - my grandparents and other family of their generation, their friends of the same generation, and I'm generally comfortable around people of that age. You strike me as someone who is intensely uncomfortable around senior citizens, from the way you carry on about them - like voting is some kind of conspiracy they engage in.

It's certainly not bad for seniors, since their interests are over-represented at the expense of others.

Uh-huh... Is this how you feel provincially, as well? My dad is lucky to be in a nursing home where he's well cared for and has good, nutritious meals and friendly staff who have absolutely no problem if I want to drop in unannounced for a visit. But there are seniors in Alberta who aren't so lucky, and they live in horrible conditions with staff who are indifferent at best (that's how it was in two of the other seniors' facilities that used to exist here; my great-uncle was in both of them over the years and one of my grandmother's friends as well, and I was extremely displeased at how they were treated).

I'm absolutely not saying that kids should be ignored, or be content with inadequate help. Nobody should have to be content with inadequate living standards. But you have never actually said what these kids you're talking about are missing out on. If it's basic food and shelter, I don't have a problem with your being upset about that. If it's a matter of not being able to afford a cell phone or tablet or the latest computer game, that's something I really can't give a damn about. I can't afford that stuff, either, and believe it or not, it's entirely possible to live life without those things.


In short (yeah, too late), Zelig: You've said you value efficiency, and you're too... whatever... to put yourself out helping any of these kids/their families by volunteering locally, to help the parents vote, and you'd rather just write a cheque, except you hate all the parties.

So I really do not understand what you're on about here. You've stated that you see a problem with a particular demographic (low-income children) and you're angry that Thomas Mulcair appears to care more about a different demographic just because that demographic tends to vote. You don't seem very informed about the demographic you're denigrating, other than knowing that they do tend to vote. Yet you refuse to do anything to help your chosen demographic exercise their own voting power.

I really don't get where you're coming from, since if you really felt this strongly, you'd do something more useful than complain about it on a computer gaming forum.

 

[Zelig]

I don't feel like selectively quoting, because vbulletin makes it sucky, so here's text addressing everything in order:

Anecdotes: Lots of policy gets made without anecdotes. One of best Conservative policies of recent governments was to abolish the penny. No anecdotes required.

Political activism: I don't really get your point asking about how I spend my time. I spend my time in the best way I can think of. If I thought there was a better way to spend my time, I'd do that instead. My way already works very well for me.

Medical care: So then just fund medical care, or people with medical problems directly.

Mulcair: I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out he's a vote-buying hypocrite.

Numbers: I'm citing that Canadian seniors over 65 get over $45k/year of government funding. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-take-a-back-seat-to-seniors/article16802095/

Most of that is *not* healthcare spending. (Healthcare spending averages something like $5k/person/year.)

Vilifying a demographic: Nope, citing numbers. Again, I'd like demographic independent, non-discriminatory policies. Pretty much the opposite of vilification.

White poverty in Mississippi: Analogous to senior poverty in terms of targeted elimination policies. There's probably actually less of a gap between whites and blacks in Mississippi than between young people and seniors in income. Feel free to post contradictory stats if you can find any.

What it boils down to for me: No, I don't care about seniors or young people either way. I care about fair and non-discriminatory policy making. The only reason I'm on seniors is because I referenced NDP spending plans being bad, and lifting seniors out of poverty took the entire front page of their website when I checked for a random example of a spending policy of theirs. All the parties have multiple similarly bad policies. (Except the Bloc, who don't seem to have any spending promises, last I checked.)

Kids: Don't care about kids, again: I'm saying if you take the say 100 people who are most in need, they're not all going to be seniors. Maybe 80 are, and 10 are children. But because you're only helping out seniors, you need to pass up on those 20 others (including the 10 children) to help out some more seniors instead. Help whoever needs the most help for a given policy.

Mulcair, again: I'm not angry. I'm not ascribing arbitrary emotions to your words, you could do me the same courtesy.

Parties: Never said I hate any of the parties. I might hate a Nazi party if one existed. Again, don't put words into my mouth.

Angry, again: Again, never said I was angry. Not even once, even though you keep bringing it up. I don't think there's anything any of our political parties would do that could provoke anger from me.

Chosen demographics: Don't have one. You're trying to read motivations behind my posts that simply do not exist.

 

[Evie]

What it boils down to for me: No, I don't care about seniors or young people either way. I care about fair and non-discriminatory policy making. The only reason I'm on seniors is because I referenced NDP spending plans being bad, and lifting seniors out of poverty took the entire front page of their website when I checked for a random example of a spending policy of theirs. All the parties have multiple similarly bad policies. (Except the Bloc, who don't seem to have any spending promises, last I checked.)

If there are ten people in front of me complaining about headaches, five due to a specific disease and five due to general lack of sleep, it is discriminatory for me to then tell five of them to take antibiotices to cure their disease and the other five to just get more sleep?

If two people suffer from the same (or rather, a similar) problem for different causes, it's perfectly normal that I should have different programs to address their problems.

Poverty is a symptom of a lot of problems. One-size-fits all answer to symptoms rarely are any use at all.

 

[Zelig]

The problem with that analogy is that in this case, the treatment (increase GIS) has no element which specifically addresses the causes of senior poverty. Simply taking the same total amount of money and instituting a guaranteed minimum income treats the same problem more fairly. (But probably wouldn't play well with voters, which is my entire point. I'm sure the NDP has internal polling numbers for GMI vs. GIS increases.)

To specifically address senior problems, short-term you'd want to look at specifically supporting preventative care, palliative care and assisted living, and long-term, possibly incentivizing companies to provide better employee savings plans.

 

[Evie]

And you might want to look at the fact that senior povery in large part is a result of senior inability to work and senior unemployability.

That's the part you seem to be in denial about. It's not merely a matter of preventative/palliative care and assisted living. It's the fact that once you're past a certain point, your ability to work is greatly diminished, and even if you're still able to work, employers would rather hire a younger person whom they assume will be able to work longer than you. That's inherent to being a senior, and means that in a lot of cases, senior poverty IS a direct symptom of their being seniors (and of existing discrimination AGAINST seniors in our society).

Reducing senior problem to medical care is fallacious crap.

 

[Arwon]

Wow, I hadn't realised Harper was actively trying to destroy the impartiality of Canadian elections.

 

[Zelig]

And you might want to look at the fact that senior povery in large part is a result of senior inability to work and senior unemployability.

That's the part you seem to be in denial about. It's not merely a matter of preventative/palliative care and assisted living. It's the fact that once you're past a certain point, your ability to work is greatly diminished, and even if you're still able to work, employers would rather hire a younger person whom they assume will be able to work longer than you. That's inherent to being a senior, and means that in a lot of cases, senior poverty IS a direct symptom of their being seniors (and of existing discrimination AGAINST seniors in our society).

Reducing senior problem to medical care is fallacious crap.

Why do we need to target diseases rendering people unable to work based on age?

 

[Evie]

Because people becoming unable to work (either due to their condition or due to society as a whole having deemed the elderly unhirable) is a pretty unique and major cause of poverty?

 

[warpus]

I don't mind the elderly getting some breaks here and there.. I grew up in a culture where we're taught that our elders are the most important people in society, and that they should be looked and cared after by those who have better health than them. Here in North America the elders seem to be thrown away once they reach a certain age. Well, screw that..

 

[Zelig]

Because people becoming unable to work (either due to their condition or due to society as a whole having deemed the elderly unhirable) is a pretty unique and major cause of poverty?

Right, but why should we be limiting support to people who are unable to work who are over 65?

I don't mind the elderly getting some breaks here and there.. I grew up in a culture where we're taught that our elders are the most important people in society, and that they should be looked and cared after by those who have better health than them. Here in North America the elders seem to be thrown away once they reach a certain age. Well, screw that..

Well generally, "some breaks here and there" isn't the case, you can check the link I posted earlier, elderly people are by far and away the wealthiest Canadians, on top of receiving several times more government funding than young people.

But we're specifically talking about the subset of the elderly who are slipping through those cracks.

 

[Evie]

Right, but why should we be limiting support to people who are unable to work who are over 65?

Because different situation that leaves you unable to work *or unemployable* should be adressed differently, ie by different programs.

 

[Zelig]

Because different situation that leaves you unable to work *or unemployable* should be adressed differently, ie by different programs.

If the solution is simply "give them money" either way, why?

 

[Evie]

Because even if you give them money the conditions and scales for who get how much may not be the same.

 

[Zelig]

Why wouldn't they be?

 

[Takhisis]

Wow, I hadn't realised Harper was actively trying to destroy the impartiality of Canadian elections.

It's not only the UK who try their best to emulate USian ‘successes’.

 

[Evie]

Because they're meant to address fundamentally different situations.

(a young person unfit to work due to health may well need far more long-term solution than the elderly, for one ; whereas a young person fit to work may need a solution that is more focused on helping and encouraging them find a job than an elderly. These being examples).

 

[Zelig]

a young person unfit to work due to health may well need far more long-term solution than the elderly, for one

Such as?