Layton pledges money for military and RCMP veterans
Comments
Seriously I see more criticism of the NDP(no matter what position they take on any given issue) on this site than the MSM does, or that of any other party in this election.
Maybe the MSM has trouble distinguishing between Harper, Ignatieff, and Layton when they all say how much they love the troops? They gotta sell newspapers, you know.
Ever wonder what happen to a lot of the regulars that use to contribute here...yeah.
I think they went somewhere where there's no debate and where their comfortable assumptions aren't challenged. Be sure to report back when you find out.
What is going on here is what is called horizontal violence; you attack your peers and are distracted from the real issues.
In this case, basic fairness. Everyone here on this forum should be in favor of that.
How is it fair that the NDP should campaign for better disability benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers (or of NDP voters, for that matter)?
acramer: Its just basic commonly shared notions of fairness to want to see this happen.
Unionist: There is a higher level of fairness which trumps, therefore it is not an expression of basic fairness.
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
Actually, unions fight for their own improvements and often are up against a public opinion (generated by lies in media and by politicians).
Soldiers and police are unquestionable heros, despite the fact that they have much safer and better paying jobs than most working people in this country and their jobs involve a whole lot of using overwhleming violence against people with no means to protect themselve (sounds more like cowards).
People like me get pissed at the NDP for giving these extrodinary benefits to only one very select sector of "workers" because the NDP often plays itself as "left wing" or "the party of the working class" at least when they're at our demos. As they have shown everytime that they have ever formed government they are really more like Liberals from the 60's.
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
Actually, unions fight for their own improvements and often are up against a public opinion (generated by lies in media and by politicians).
That's exactly the point.
And the narrative is not a lie. Just like Unionist's jab is not a lie. They are both using 'truth'.
They are rhetorical devices for attacking and undermining.
People like me get pissed at the NDP for giving these extrodinary benefits to only one very select sector of "workers" because the NDP often plays itself as "left wing" or "the party of the working class" at least when they're at our demos. As they have shown everytime that they have ever formed government they are really more like Liberals from the 60's.
I dont have a problem with you being pissed, and not liking the NDP for reasons like this. Its a perfectly valid and useful perspective. Ditto for Unionist, as far as criticism and expressions of opinion go.
But unlike with you, some take it well beyond criticism and expressions of opinion.
Ever wonder what happened to a lot of the regulars that used to contribute here...yeah.
I think they went somewhere where there's no debate and where their comfortable assumptions aren't challenged. Be sure to report back when you find out.
Debate isnt the type of 'challenge' people want to get away from.
Not to mention that no one who posts on Babble for a while, whatever their inclinations, is going to be undisposed to debate.
Actually, unions fight for their own improvements and often are up against a public opinion (generated by lies in media and by politicians).
*bolding mine
Wow...LeT, usually I really like your words and thoughts, however in this instance you have moved yourself from your own self imposed purveyourship of all that is "progressive" to a place far far different.
As really, what you have stated and shown in this word grouping is decidedly unprogressive. From my POV at least.
Those words are no different, to me, than those on the right who have nothing but contempt for those who have not pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and 'arrived'.
Not much for 'helping" RCMP veterans in their pension struggles such as they are, or aren't.
However, comments about military veterans and their pensions are way off base. As is the attitude of vitriolic disrespect shown here about them. To me, it borders on hate shedding, and as a progressive and a feminist I will not let it go by uncommented upon.
Well, this thread goes on:
Quit honestly, I really don't understand why so many people are having trouble with Jack's statement. Here is a partial quote I got from a website, "Homecoming Vets at the Corssroads of Humanity", a blog:
""One of the biggest complaints about the system relates to the New Veterans Charter, which in 2006 overhauled the system of benefits. It replaced lifetime, guaranteed pensions with a sliding scale of lump-sum payments and other benefits for disabilities.
The $285,000 top-end payment is far less generous than what other allied nations give their wounded soldiers. Independent actuarial reports have stated that the lowest-paid and most critically injured soldiers were the ones shortchanged by the revised system."
For me, this is outrageous. Military service people don't enter the service expecting to get something for what they do. I can tell you that like pretty much all of my former service colleagues, I enrolled out of a combination, I emphasize, AS I SAW IT, of a sense of national service, and patriotism. Arguably, you could add attraction to the "romance" of military servie, and knowledge, OF COURSE, of the benefits likely to accrue.
However, the issue really is about how vets under Harper, and even the Libs have been treated. It is completely both unreasonable, and immoral for the national government through messing around with compmesation to find a way out of the obligation to look after vets who suffer life changing injury under combat. This is unrpecedented; it is simply another money-grubbing, neocon ploy to find a way to slink out of meeting an obligation to members of the citizenry. I am very proud of Jack for the stance he took. It is the right one. And frankly, as I detailed above in another post, simply in keeping with the NDP tradition of speakng for votes going back at least to Davey Orlikow, who was very close friend of my departed father, who, by the way was a veteran of the D-Day beaches, and was very much involved in vet causes over much of his life. My father by the way was violently anit-war, and spent most of his life fighting against the spread of conflict as best he could; this even extended to my mother and father providing temporary "shelter", to Vietnam war objectors. I only mention this to explain that I don't come from a "pro-war", blindly "pro-military" familial background. Like my father, I simply joined out of a sense of obligation, and nationalist pride. I welcomed the chance to serve.
So, again, as I detailed above, I simply don't understand from where the animus in this thread is originating; I truly don't understand how the issue of a worker's rightful expectation to personal wellbeing and comfort in their retirement seems to have become a proxy for a battle on another front such as is occuring on this thread. Again, I say it is simply about fairness, and doing what is right. We should all be fighting this together as simply part of the broader unifed front and fight against the opression of worker welfare that all of us have engaged ourselves in fight against.
I don't know any other way to express this.
The NDP is a pro-military party, there is no surprise that this plan is coming out as official policy. I just assume this plan would come out later in the campaign.
(bolding emphasis mine)
That's an eye-opener. This country needs less emphasis on fighting stupid, meaningless conflicts overseas, but I guess that's contingent on getting some decent leadership that is pro-peace.
You are looking at a bullshit interpretation of Jack Layton's and the party's position. based on some kind of felt need to demonstrate an anti-military position, Boomer. It comes with a juvenile - not yet mature -mindset, and one that is extremely vulnerable to influence.
acramer has put it very nicely. Wish I had his/her patience and control.
Wow...LeT, usually I really like your words and thoughts, however in this instance you have moved yourself from your own self imposed purveyourship of all that is "progressive" to a place far far different.As really, what you have stated and shown in this word grouping is decidedly unprogressive. From my POV at least.
Those words are no different, to me, than those on the right who have nothing but contempt for those who have not pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and 'arrived'.
Not much for 'helping" RCMP veterans in their pension struggles such as they are, or aren't.
However, comments about military veterans and their pensions are way off base. As is the attitude of vitriolic disrespect shown here about them. To me, it borders on hate shedding, and as a progressive and a feminist I will not let it go by uncommented upon.
I'm not talking bootstraps, remind. I'm talking about the way that the NDP only supports the labour movement under cover of darkness. Or actually attacks unions as was the case in Ontario with Bob Ray's government or Toronto Mayor David Miller. Unlike unions, soldiers enjoy around the clock high fives for being heros from the NDP despite the fact that they are not. The fact that NDP is talking benefits for vets and not ENDING THE INVASIONS OF AFGHANISTAN AND LIBYA is problematic. The RCMP deserve nothing, they are an over-paid fascist gang.
And what's with all this "homeless people are vets" trope. It's a total stereotype that most homeless people are bearded men living rough. Some people without housing are indeed vets, many more are workers who lost their jobs or had no disability or pension.
By the way, that argument you are making Unionist- "benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers" is exactly the same one that is used against unionized workers because they have benefits the rest of us dont have. "Its not right they get what most of you do not have."
Yes, Ken, we unionized workers didn't get our superior benefits by pandering politicians bequeathing them to us - we organized ourselves and fought for them, and in doing so we raised the level of the working class as a whole. Unionized workers never begged for special better treatment from governments. We lobby for better EI and CPP/QPP and minimum wage and health and safety and labour standards for all, union and non-union alike. Layton sheds tears for soldiers. He issues a statement every time one of them gets his ass blown off in Afghanistan. When he does these things, he does not act on behalf of working people.
Of course, if all he hears is the kind of cheerleaders in some of these threads, he will have no reason to fight for higher minimum wage or CPP/QPP (which appears to have receded in his speeches - we'll see) or easier unionization for an increasingly disorganized workforce. He will keep on pandering, and keep on losing - because if you want a militarist and friend of the cops, you really don't need to go to the socialists for that. Harper and Ignatieff will do just fine.
I'm not talking bootstraps, remind.
Well...actually you were. You were victim blamming, pure and simple. And setting union workers above other workers as if they were more. Decidedly unprogressive in its entirety.
I'm talking about the way that the NDP only supports the labour movement under cover of darkness.
Absolute lack of mature thinking in that comment, as evidenced by the examples you used below.
Or actually attacks unions as was the case in Ontario with Bob Ray's government or Toronto Mayor David Miller.
Heads up, Bob Rae is a Liberal. And going back 2 decades to him as an example is mind boggling in its lack of any deep thought and /or analysis.
David Miller was a mayor, there is no NDP in mayoralty realities.
The rest of your comments were not applicable to me, so I won't bother responding to your scatter gun inclusion comments.
You know Unionist, I simply can't understand why you display this kind of animus.
I really do get completely that ordinary workers are being attacked; I absolutely agree that the NDP needs desparately to be more vocal on union and worker issues. But I don't at all understand how you can be dismissive of the issues of verteran's needs. Why the animus, and what is it you want? Should Jack just ingore military issues? Should he forget about vets? What s it you want? I am not trying to attack you but I just don't get what you are trying to say. I just don't see how the issue of veterans pensions and benefits is linked to the issue of NDP support for workers and worker rights and well being within, and without the work force.
Unionist, it looks to me like you were rather aggressive towards Todrick who was asking for a clarification, and not denying any sort of rights, or making any sort of statement that warranted your aggression. These are heady times, but please dial it back.
George, your post at #36 had little to do with the topic and reads like a personal attack. I think you know what's wrong with it. If indeed you "lack the patience" of acramer, simply refrain from posting until you have something of substance to offer the discussion. Thanks.
Well...actually you were. You were victim blamming, pure and simple. And setting union workers above other workers as if they were more. Decidedly unprogressive in its entirety.
Did you read what i wrote? The claim was being made that calling out the NDP for favouring soldiers and cops over any other worker was the same as saying that unions don't deserve anything because they already get more. This not only confuses political advocacy with contract negotiations it misses the point. My point was not that union workers are better than soliers because they faught for their own (and soldiers') rights. My point was that the NDP has never made an election announcement along the lines of "we are going to expand benefits for people working in unions". I was pointing out that the comparison is not true. And as unionist pointed out, unions have always fought for all working peoples rights and the fruits of their labour have even been realized by the cops who have attacked labour all through history.
Rae is a Liberal but i'm pretty sure that the rest of the government that he lead were NDPers and i'm pretty sure that they all decided to make working people pay for the reccesion (sound familiar?)
Miller wasn't an NDP mayor, Ford's not a PC Mayor and there are no parties in Toronto municipal politics, whatever you want to believe.
Unionist, it looks to me like you were rather aggressive towards Todrick who was asking for a clarification, and not denying any sort of rights, or making any sort of statement that warranted your aggression. These are heady times, but please dial it back.
I reread Todrick's posts and realized I had jumped to a wrong conclusion. I thought he was challenging Le T's proposition that at $77,000 after 36 months, RCMP were vastly overpaid compared to most federal public service workers. I was wrong, and I apologize to him.
But I don't at all understand how you can be dismissive of the issues of verteran's needs.
I am not dismissive of veterans' needs. I am opposed to the NDP making it a campaign issue. I question why Jack Layton wants disabled veterans to be able to collect both disability benefits and a pension, when (as I've repeated over and over) very few workers are lucky enough to have long-term disability benefits, and those who do, don't get to pyramid them with their pensions. I don't think retired or disabled soldiers deserve one iota more gratitude, respect, or money than any other retired or disabled workers.
So tell me - why do you support this specific pledge of Mr. Layton? How do you justify treating soldiers and RCMP better than other workers?
@unionist:
That is a very fair question, and I appreciate you asking me. The answer is very simple; they've earned it. They made the ultimate national sacrifice, and we as a nation have an iron-clad obligation to acknowledge it and provide the compensation to which they are so right entitled. It is that simple.
Regarding worker compensation, again, this should be treated no differently. They have made their obligations to our national social contract, they provided their labour expecting to be fairly treated at the end of their working lives. The issue is reform. I dont know why Jack hasn't spoken to it. I can tell you that when he comes to Winnipeg, I have spoken to him and while he listens when I can get his ear, all he says is thanks. Is that progress? Probably not. All I can do is try to lobby him and my local MP. I won't give up trying. But I don't think Jack shouldn't have spoken out in support of the vets. It probably is at least related to political expediency. But short of what I have tried to do, I don't know what else their is but to keep trying. Maybe some day we can change things.
The fact that these kind of obvious injustices and inconsistencies is certainly a tragedy, to say the least. Again, I don't know any other way to speak to your concerns. I won't give up; please don't give up either.
I hope this appears to be a serious and thoughtful, respectfully response to your query. If I offer now, or have offered offense at any time, I apologize. Certainly, that would never be my intent. Thanks again for allowing me to try and provide you a reply.
Respectfully.
The answer is very simple; they've earned it. They made the ultimate national sacrifice, and we as a nation have an iron-clad obligation to acknowledge it and provide the compensation to which they are so right entitled. It is that simple.
It's not "very simple". It's a total crock of shit. Soldiers do not make the ultimate sacrifice, they do their jobs just like we all do. Their jobs are much safer than most workers' but for some reason they get the "ultimate sacrifice" BS. It's a crock, it's part of getting people to support our imperial war machine.
Well, yea. It's part of that extremely successful campaign, over many years, in which government spending on the military is given a virtual free pass. Other departments get savaged but the military ... gets a free ride.
In fact, that campaign is so successful that many legitimate issues relating to military spending, given the private media in our country, are virtually decided in advance. The NDP is unwilling and unable to challenge this.
The NDP is happy to embarrass the Cons (and the Libs who were much the same) over fairness issues without challenging the premises of imperial military adventures, involvement in NATO, and so on. Since the Cons put a strong emphasis on the military (just look at the Cdn Forces ads and propaganda all over the place) this is actually pretty clever as it "blows them out of the water" on what "should be" their strength.
Pretty clever, if cynical, I think.
Edited to add: It's a strategy of trying to neutralize the advantage of the political enemy.
Le T this is where you show your lack of knowlege/mature thought and progressiveness, in respect to military persons and veteran's.
ETA, and their families!!!!!!!!!!
You are way off base, and I hope some day you grab a clue.
But will not continue further with you in this respect, as I have none for you in this matter. So it is pointless and I do not want to think worse of you than I have commenced doing already.
Take care
Right. I need to mature my thought process so that I can fully understand that soldiers and police officers make the ultimate sacrifice for society and we (each and every one of us) have an "iron-clad" obligation to give them special status. Their injuries are more grevious than any other because they are making the ultimate sacrifice. Their families suffer more than any other because they are making the ultimate sacrifice. And the NDP, a party that presents itself as left of something, should campaign to bring soldiers and police officers a special level of disability and pension benefits, availble only to them, because they have made the ultimate sacrifice.
That's fucking bullshit.
How is it fair that the NDP should campaign for better disability benefits for soldiers and mounties, who already have far better benefits than the vast majority of workers (or of NDP voters, for that matter)?
And what problem did you have with the elimination of double dipping on disability and pension benefits? How was that "unfair"? Or have you actually looked at the package he proposed?