Thursday, November 25, 2010

Conservatives in Canada: Boiling Frog Warning




More stupid ideas from "Progressive" Thinkers.

Ok.

So.

Here we are in the midst of one of the most significant economic depressions in modern history.

Budgets are strained to provide the basic needs of our citizens, particularly health care and education.  The building blocks of a functioning social system.

Anyway.

Out in Vancouver (the place that brought us the constitutional right for crack and heroin addicts to camp in children's playgrounds and do heroin without legal repercussions) they are advocating another wonderful idea.

They call this "guaranteed income".

You see - as pointed out in the Straight, the problem is that there are too many children in poverty.

Which may be so.

And apparently, it is the responsibility of working Canadians to guarantee those children's families a certain level of income - which in an article in the Georgia Strait, isn't defined, but is implied to be about $35,000.00 per year.

In discussing the concept, the article references a paper by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (sort of the Liberal/NDP answer to the Fraser Institute), "Possibilities and Prospects: The Debate Over a Guaranteed Income."

As painful as it is, I would urge small "c" conservative Canadians to read this paper.  Read it and think about a few things.  Like many offers from academia, it has the patina of looking at the pros and cons of it's underlying premise.. but in reality, it's a slick piece of progressive propaganda, and given the effectiveness of selling bad ideas to a burdened electorate, one should read this paper with some serious degree of concern.

What is the suggestion?

That the government hands out money to every Canadian, without condition.  No need to look for work, no need to lift a finger.  You are a resident of Canada and as such, the government hands you money.

As described in the paper:
"..recipients of such an unconditional guaranteed income would have no requirements of labour force involvement or availability, labour skills training, or job seeking. Such a benefit could be seen as a right of citizenship, as important as (for example) the right to vote."

The discussion of who pays for it and how is, I suggest, intentionally underplayed and to a great extent ignored.  The article acknowledges that the cost would be significant for the effort to be anything more than a token gesture and that taxpayers would hardly stand still for a significant increase in their taxes to fund free-loaders.

The answer?

Deception.

Boldly described in the article is how you avoid a tax revolt.

You get your foot in the door and then, administratively, you just push it open, farther and farther over time.
"Many thoughtful proponents of a guaranteed income see a strategy of gradual implementation — an initially modest but universal guaranteed income whose benefit level grows as the public gets used to the idea — as answer to the tricky issue of cost."
Their idea is they are going to boil us like frogs.

They'll talk us into the pot, and then little, by little, they will raise the temperature by small increments, until we're soup.

Which is fine, because, really, child poverty is OUR fault don't you know?  Those of you going to work today - know that as you get your car started and find your way to the grocery store you're stocking shelves at, you police officers standing in the cold giving out a ticket, coal miners pulling on your blackened work-boots and cleaning snow off your truck, all of you are just being greedy by not giving more of your income to those in need.

People like Tracy Johnson.

Who is Tracy Johnson?  Well, she's one of the proponents of the guaranteed income plan referenced in the Straight.  To quote:
Tracy Johnson, a single parent, knows only too well the difficulty of getting by on limited means. Speaking during the presentation by First Call of its child-poverty report, Johnson explained that she is on welfare, and that she doesn’t have enough for her five children.
Read that again.

She is on welfare and doesn't get enough for her FIVE CHILDREN.

But it's OUR fault, right?

Tracy.

A little advice.

To quote Chris Rock, "Put down the dick!"

To the rest of us - don't be a frog in a pot, don't get in it, and if you feel like you're already there.. jump out.

5 comments:

Don said...

I think in 10 years, it'll be time to "go John Galt". I'm making my plans to "check out" of the system.

renegade tory said...

I'm so tired of the mentality that its the government's responsibility to provide for a person/family's needs. Why should hard working tax paying citizens have to provide for someone who obviously didn't have the decency to stop procreating when she couldn't afford to feed her offspring. Talk about a society who believes they are entitled to their entitlements.

Lynn said...

Hm, I have to learn to read the headlines more carefully, I thought it was a report by the Fraser Institute,but it was a paper by a Simon Fraser prof,done for the CCPA,the official think tank of the NDP.

The report is full of the usual disappointing ignorance by highly educated people,who all seem to have NOT the foggiest notion of how an economy operates,where THE MONEY comes from.

The report contains favored socialist terms terms like "just wages", "sustainable", etc., and nowhere do the authors mention the source of the wealth they love to spread around,CAPITALISM.

I believe they actually imagine there IS "government money"!

One section hypothesizes on what recipients would do with their guaranteed income,"start businesses with a just wage..."!

Out to lunch! Recipients of welfare almost never "start a business", unless you count dope dealing. Most people receiving a guaranteed income would remain non-productive,and bleed the system until it collapses.

Socialism is an amazing affliction,and proponents never seem to have any idea of how basically flawed the whole theory is.

Perhaps they spend too much time in non-productive pursuits,and don't realize THEY are welfare recipients under a different name.

Were we to follow their advice and "models", our Country would soon be as bankrupt as the socialist Nations around the world,Greece,Ireland,France,...

No thanks.

DMorris

Pissedoff said...

Lets stop being PC, Tracy stop lying on your back and spreading your legs, unless you are going to charge for it.

Kez Creates said...

Well I guess I can just quit work then because $35,000 a year is more than I make by about $10,000. Woooooo! Oh wait, I won't get that perk afterall because my partner makes more than that. Oh shoot, I guess I'll have to keep working to help feed my own kids that I chose to have instead of the rest of you doing it.

Thing is too with that guaranteed income idea, it's still right at the cusp of poverty level (in Alberta at least), so those people would still ALSO get benefits such as daycare subsidy, various health care subsidies (like alberta's Child Health Benefit), housing benefits, etc. A few years ago the base for those kinds of subsidies was $36,000 a year. I qualified for everything except welfare when I was a single mom. The article's Tracy would still probably get about $1000 a month for CCTB, lord only knows what for GST every 3 months, and whatever other programs she was on. If you only make $35,000 a year it can still be very difficult to pay all of your bills these days, so not only would tax payers be funding the guaranteed income, they would still be funding all the other programs as well. How on earth is that even remotely sustainable??? I think that Think Tank went down the drain!