Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

That Wrong Harper vs that Wrong System?​

By Exegesisme

On the topic "End the Harper Government: My views on Canada's democracy" (1), I said that "The whole political system is encouraging corruption, any party in power can not avoid."

The word corruption here mainly means political corruption, which means political wrong doing for political specific benefits of a party. First, I see that Harper made a lot of political wrong doings under the present political system, however, I see he actually did one good thing, which the other two parties are saying that is wrong as part of each strategy for the ongoing election.

That good thing is to postpone the retirement age from 65 to 67, this is a policy of all fast aging nations should take. However, in the ongoing election, both the liberal(2) and the NDP(3) are promised overthrowing this policy once they take the power.

So, what I see is that the present political system encourages the political corruption for partisan political benefits. I am trying to overhaul the whole political system to get the issues fixed beyond to contemn each wrong doing of each political party. (4), (5). I am also exploring new political possibility(6) and new political philosophy(7).

I hope more people standing with me to get the job done. I can not get the job done along without your support. I also hope that all MPs of all parties of Canada in coming time realize the long persisted issues and try to fix them together.

Reference

(1) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24947-end-the-harper-government-my-views-on-canadas-democracy/

(2) https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/10-pensions-age-security-canada-pension-plan/

"WHEREAS the qualifying age for eligibility for old age security benefits was raised to age 67 from age 65 thereby creating a domino effect impacting on the above economic and social objectives;"​ "BE IT RESOLVED that the Old Age Security Benefits eligibility revert to age 65 to facilitate the voluntary exit of older Canadians from this market into alternative part time employment and or retirement;"

(3) http://www.ndp.ca/issues

"As Prime Minister, Tom will cancel the Conservative decision to raise the retirement age — bringing it back down to 65."

(4) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24828-8-weaknesses-of-federal-political-system-and-reform/

(5) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24942-my-criticisms-and-reforming-suggestions-for-the-canadian-political-party-system/

(6) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24853-canada-needs-direct-election-of-the-prime-minister/

(7) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24876-political-philosophy-for-human-future-1-definition/

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

That Wrong Harper vs that Wrong System?​

By Exegesisme

On the topic "End the Harper Government: My views on Canada's democracy" (1), I said that "The whole political system is encouraging corruption, any party in power can not avoid."

The word corruption here mainly means political corruption, which means political wrong doing for political specific benefits of a party. First, I see that Harper made a lot of political wrong doings under the present political system, however, I see he actually did one good thing, which the other two parties are saying that is wrong as part of each strategy for the ongoing election.

That good thing is to postpone the retirement age from 65 to 67, this is a policy of all fast aging nations should take. However, in the ongoing election, both the liberal(2) and the NDP(3) are promised overthrowing this policy once they take the power.

So, what I see is that the present political system encourages the political corruption for partisan political benefits. I am trying to overhaul the whole political system to get the issues fixed beyond to contemn each wrong doing of each political party. (4), (5). I am also exploring new political possibility(6) and new political philosophy(7).

I hope more people standing with me to get the job done. I can not get the job done along without your support. I also hope that all MPs of all parties of Canada in coming time realize the long persisted issues and try to fix them together.

Reference

(1) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24947-end-the-harper-government-my-views-on-canadas-democracy/

(2) https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/10-pensions-age-security-canada-pension-plan/

"WHEREAS the qualifying age for eligibility for old age security benefits was raised to age 67 from age 65 thereby creating a domino effect impacting on the above economic and social objectives;"​ "BE IT RESOLVED that the Old Age Security Benefits eligibility revert to age 65 to facilitate the voluntary exit of older Canadians from this market into alternative part time employment and or retirement;"

(3) http://www.ndp.ca/issues

"As Prime Minister, Tom will cancel the Conservative decision to raise the retirement age — bringing it back down to 65."

(4) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24828-8-weaknesses-of-federal-political-system-and-reform/

(5) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24942-my-criticisms-and-reforming-suggestions-for-the-canadian-political-party-system/

(6) ​http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24853-canada-needs-direct-election-of-the-prime-minister/

(7) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24876-political-philosophy-for-human-future-1-definition/

By OGFT

-(1) The OAP system has been costed well into the future at age 65. Harper is robbing the cookie jar under the guise that we can't afford it, so he can put the money to other, nefarious tasks, such as corporate tax breaks to buy votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By OGFT

-(1) The OAP system has been costed well into the future at age 65. Harper is robbing the cookie jar under the guise that we can't afford it, so he can put the money to other, nefarious tasks, such as corporate tax breaks to buy votes.

I wish it's so. However, we should face really directly the coming aging society with longer lifespan.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this thread. Do you want to discuss the pension issue and the economic sustainment of Canada within the context of overpopulation and environmental containment issues like climate change? Or do you want to discuss the political environment, how the Harperites have distorted and realigned the political landscape for their own benefit, and how to fix it (as the thread title suggests)? If you try to mix them both, you have such a broad thread that anything might be relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By OGFT

-(1) The OAP system has been costed well into the future at age 65. Harper is robbing the cookie jar under the guise that we can't afford it, so he can put the money to other, nefarious tasks, such as corporate tax breaks to buy votes.

How many times do you have to be told to stop making things up? First of all it's OAS. Secondly, the eligibility age remains at 65 until 2023 and does not fully rise to 67 until 2029.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this thread. Do you want to discuss the pension issue and the economic sustainment of Canada within the context of overpopulation and environmental containment issues like climate change? Or do you want to discuss the political environment, how the Harperites have distorted and realigned the political landscape for their own benefit, and how to fix it (as the thread title suggests)? If you try to mix them both, you have such a broad thread that anything might be relevant.

What you understand is not enough.

Your second issue is from the topic, but twists my topic. My topic is that the political system is the source of the political wrong doings of all the three major parties, especially the conservative party, which has taken the power in the past ten years.

Your first issue is not my topic, but appears in the discussion for understanding that immigration is not an absolute way to offset the issued of aging tendency. In this field, the NDP made a wrong promise in the election, and so did the liberal but not as obvious as the NDP, and the Conservative policy is right.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you understand is not enough.

Your second issue is from the topic, but twists my topic. My topic is that the political system is the source of the political wrong doings of all the three major parties, especially the conservative party, which has taken the power in the past ten years.

Your first issue is not my topic, but appears in the discussion for understanding that immigration is not an absolute way to offset the issued of aging tendency. In this field, the NDP made a wrong promise in the election, and so did the liberal but not as obvious as the NDP, and the Conservative policy is right.

Allow me to reframe the debate. The change the Conservatives made to OAS is misguided and unnecessary; but it is tangential to this discussion. It's dumb policy but not corrupt. I think you should just leave it out of this discussion - it's irrelevant to your main point.

What you really mean to discuss is the way that the parties have corrupted the political landscape. And if you're talking about the last 10 years, then yes, it's really about the Conservatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to reframe the debate. The change the Conservatives made to OAS is misguided and unnecessary; but it is tangential to this discussion. It's dumb policy

With people living longer and longer lives, how is it dumb?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do you have to be told to stop making things up? First of all it's OAS. Secondly, the eligibility age remains at 65 until 2023 and does not fully rise to 67 until 2029.

I think the bigger issue is that people can begin drawing CPP at 60. If they want to really make a difference, they should disallow anyone from drawing anything until 65. You want to retire early? Great! Fund those extra years on your own though.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

At a 70% total rate while still contributing to the program, from a fund that doesn't affect general revenue.

You're talking about a fund that at one point paid out $1.25 for every $1.00 put into it. For people your age, this fund is going to pay out somewhere in the neighbourhood of $0.75 for every $1.00 you put into it. That's a serious problem and nobody's talking about addressing it.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

With people living longer and longer lives, how is it dumb?

Because by 2025, as many as half the current jobs won't exist.

We keep trying to apply yesterday's solutions to tomorrow's problems. Sooner or later, we need to come to the point where we recognize that a lot of so-called work is just shuffling money around and we don't need as many people to do it. Banking, retail sales, corporate law, tax accounting - there are huge swaths of people that produce nothing and exist really as a mechanism to redistribute money. We hardly manufacture anything in this country anymore and we're still all working. The question is what are we doing?

The answer is that we're creating an ever-expanding range of goods and services but people can only consume so much.

If you look at the trends - an aging workforce, automation that is on the verge of eliminating all kinds of jobs, overpopulation and environmental degradation which is slowly raising awareness that we need to set some limits on many of our activities, they all point in one direction. Sooner or later, we need to rationalize and come to the conclusion that a system devoted to an ever-expanding GDP is neither possible nor desirable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about a fund that at one point paid out $1.25 for every $1.00 put into it. For people your age, this fund is going to pay out somewhere in the neighbourhood of $0.75 for every $1.00 you put into it.

It's fully solvent far into the future. I don't have a problem with the way it's run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to reframe the debate. The change the Conservatives made to OAS is misguided and unnecessary; but it is tangential to this discussion. It's dumb policy but not corrupt. I think you should just leave it out of this discussion - it's irrelevant to your main point.

What you really mean to discuss is the way that the parties have corrupted the political landscape. And if you're talking about the last 10 years, then yes, it's really about the Conservatives.

The change the Conservatives made to OAS is responsible. It is a case that shows what the other two parties are not right.

I mean exactly that the political system made the corruption of the parties, and the parties should be saved from the wrong system.

Edited by Exegesisme
Link to post
Share on other sites

The change the Conservatives made to OAS is responsible. It is a case that shows what the other two parties are not right.

I mean exactly that the political system made the corruption of the parties, and the parties should be saved from the wrong system.

In your view it's responsible. In my view (and that's shared by others here) it's unnecessary and counter-productive.

My point that it has nothing to do with the title of this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you even know what the reference to a tinfoil hat means?

I'm saying you're being paranoid about the future. You have a very dim view of most things. I'm far more optimistic about the future and the present.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...