Monday, December 7, 2009

I see the train a comin'

Who can we believe? I have heard for decades that the baby boomers are the wealthiest generation that ever was or will be. Yet during Jack Layton's recent visit to the NDP homeland he states that we have a demographic train coming and we don't have the tools in place to deal with it. Thus we, the general taxpayer, should invest 700 million into the Canada Pension Plan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike Old Age Security pension that every Canadian receives, Canada Pension is the plan that employers and employees contribute to and your pension receipt is based on your contribution. I might understand if he wanted to bump up OAS for poorer seniors, but the demographic train coming is hauling, for the best part, affluent passengers.

I think I could be convinced that many of today's senior women need additional assistance, since many would not have worked outside of the home and be eligible for CPP, but CPP is not the correct funding source to fix this problem.

Jack needs to check the destination of the train before booking a ticket.


  1. Actually, CivicMistress, you are wrong.

    Layton called for a $700 million investment in the Old Age and Security Pension, to assist those senior women you believe need assistance.

    A quick google search revealed Layton's pension platform has been widely reported in the national media, and also revealed the plan outline at You may want to read it.

    Opinions without facts are dangerous.

  2. I guess you should forward this on to the Star Phoenix. In today's paper it reports he wants a 700 million dollar investment in the Canada Pension Plan.

    As for checking Layton's site, forget it.

  3. "As for checking Layton's site, forget it."

    Always the dialectic thinker, aren't you Elaine?

  4. Hey Anon, at least she is able to attach her name to her viewpoints rather than log and post personal attacks under the guise of anonymous. You are clearly a class act, as for failing to attach your name to the post, you are simply another troll out to deface any person who dare oppose your beloved NDP who you stand by and defend regardless of the inane platform they may advance.

    Grow a mind for yourself and give some free thought, and next time you want to get personal and attack 'Elaine' have the gall to attach your name to it. Though all indications are that you are probably some party hack (perhaps Don Kossick???...hmmm) who hasn't the slightest idea what it means to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'

  5. Actually, it took a bit of time to attach her name to the post especially the ones which were cleary aimed at gaining personal attacks at her targets.

  6. It took time? Her history was posted on this site the day after it was launched. Anyone who has lived in Saskatoon and have followed politics (hence their reason for coming to this political based blog) would realize in half a second who was writing it.

    Never has she tried to keep identity a secret. On the other hand the NDP cowards who come here to bash her for having different viewpoints then here continue to use Anon (except PJ2). Keep the fear mongering going NDPers you've managed to hold down this province for last half century, might as well keep it going.

  7. Rather ironic that one anonymous poster is attacking another poster for being "anonymous."

    And yes, I understand the irony of my posting alias, too.

  8. Haha I thought of that as I was writing the posting (and the irony of it as well). However, I figured in the end that an Anon can attack an Anon, but that it should/would be unfair for an Anon to attack 'outed' person or alias

  9. A Notice to All Anons:

    Here's what I don't get about the sniping on this blog. The CM has created a forum for discussion of political issues. It should feed your hunger for political debate. You don't have to agree with one another, but you should appreciate having a home for rationale, spirited (yet friendly) political discussion.

    So why turn it into such an exercise in turd slinging? Be civil and enjoy.

    Al Anon (which is where I'll be headed if we can't clean up the discussion here).

  10. The problem is that CivicMistress (once again) failed to perform due diligence before posting on her blog.

    Instead of researching Layton's pension proposal, she read one factually-false newspaper article then inflammatorily perpetuated this misinformation.

    When exposed as lacking vigor when researching facts on which to base her opinions, she then refused to even read the NDP proposal she was attacking.

    Ironically, in her attack CivicMistress found common ground with the NDP: her musings about Old Age and Security Pension reform are exactly what Layton called for. She would have known this had the proposal been read before attacking it.

  11. Cant believe how nasty people are on here. Either its hating NDP or hating SaskParty/Conservatives. Cant people have an intellegent civil conversation on here.
    Although the NDP supporters here are intolerant , I find there are far more ardent conservatives who are even more intolerant. This type of dialogue is getting old & those of us that fit neither mold are getting very turned off. It isnt debate or intellegent thought its just bashing based on ideology..and immature bashing at that!!

  12. If I had a dialect, and I'm not sure that I do,I'm not quite sure how that would tie to my thought process.

    I'm amused that anyone would be indignant about misinformation on my little blog site, particularly when it was taken from a fairly large newspaper that distributes city wide. I would suggest that anger should be directed at the paper and a retraction requested, unless of course the anger has nothing to do with the blog site but everything to do with me personally.

    I won't go to Layton's site because I have little respect for him and thus, his views. I am not much interested in what he has to say to the faithful and the exercise would be a waste of my time. Perhaps certain people should reflect on why the waste their time on my site.

    Night all. We'll speak tomorrow.

  13. Civic Mistress, as much as I respect you, I think it was you who was out of line today & being overly defensive. You did not note the source of your information in the article. And the person who brought the error forward was in no way attacking you. Anon merely said you were wrong & noted the source for correct information. Im not sure how anyone could translate that into an attack. I think the appropriate response,and I believe the one more in character with who you are, would be to accept the correction & thank the person for bringing it forward. Saying: "As for checking Layton's site, forget it" just wasnt called for.
    You are a bigger person then this Mistress.

  14. It is now the 8th, I have just read the above on this and wish to join earlier comments that the sniping and partisan comments are not only unintelligent but detract from the real discussion, which is "Should there be an increase to the CPP?" I for one am all for it - I don't see it benefitting the early Baby boomers (1946 to 50) because some have already retired and the others will soon but certainly it will benefit their children. The payments right now are not enough and that will only become exaggerated with time. Why wouldn't people be allowed to contribute more and receive more? I think Layton, even though Civic Mistress can't stand him, has a valid point and it should be debated and we should be open-minded enough to hear what the plan is.

    As for chastizing Civic Mistress, really....!
    I like her spunk even though I don't always agree with her. And I like the fact she puts herself on the line and makes herself controversial to give us an opportunity to debate issues. Thank you CV - even if you are wrong this time.

  15. To Anon... it is now the 8th, I couldn't agree more about the name calling on this blog. I also agree INDIVIDUALS should be given the opportunity to increase there contributions to CPP but I am not willing to give those same individuals more from the public purse thus increasing taxes. Give people back the money government has stolen from them in EI over payments and let them use it for their retirement.

  16. How do you make a post in which you won't even attempt to get the basic facts straight?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.