The Shotgun Blog
« Sarkozy in America | Main | Lest We Forget »
Friday, November 09, 2007
Dion's Hypocrisy
Dion pledges to slash poverty rates in Canada if elected PM
Isn't this a huge hypocritical issue for someone whose party's policies have made Canadians poorer through the past few years? And survival of his party is based on the poor. Because Liberals want the poor to be out there so they can manipulate them. Use them as welfare-slaves and blackmail the poor during the elections.
By the way, those 3.4 milion people living in poverty Mr. Dion would like to help if elected PM are not the direct result of more than a decade long Liberal leadership in this great country? At least, I can ask that question.
I am kinda surprised! Are you not?!
Posted by Winston on November 9, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f924b3c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dion's Hypocrisy:
Comments
No different from the DemoRats in the US. Since LBJ's War on Poverty, over $40 billion has been spent on the poor in the US with little result.
Poverty is not something that the nanny state can eliminate. Only individual people can elevate themselves financially through hard work and responsible living, like getting a job, getting married and getting children - IN THAT ORDER!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 12:20:06 PM
Agreed... "Hardworking and finanically responsible people" & Liberals" are two different terms from two separate worlds.
Posted by: Winston | 2007-11-09 12:23:44 PM
It's all about pandering for votes, Winston. Page one in the Leftoid political power-grabbing playbook.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 12:29:21 PM
Also called the Red Book.
So what's on page 2 obc?
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-09 12:39:20 PM
Page 2 are the instructions for stealing funds for the Liberal coffers. Of course, it is written in French.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 12:44:44 PM
Do not forget the whole poverty industry whose existence depends on the existence of the "poor" and who will fight tooth and nail to maintain and to increase their government (in other words us tax payers) funding.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-09 1:01:51 PM
Dion's plan for creating poverty really is quite nasty since he will use it to directly undermine people's sense of self-worth and then manipulate them. Left leaning politicians are so desperate to have control over people they will stoop to anything.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-09 1:31:37 PM
What the Progressive Conservatives and The Alliance experienced prior to amalgamation--this is what the left is experiencing. They are eating their own leftist policies. They are competeting for the left votes--so ha ha ha!
He should know by now that you cannot legislate away poverty--then again there is much that he ought to have known by now--and does not. Which is why he should never be PM.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-09 1:33:40 PM
The Liberal/Left and the Nanny State is the basis for what's become the poverty industry and it's been running rampant. The new shtick for Dion and his minions is child poverty, a term fit for the dumpster. They're putting the poverty label and onus on the kids to get more sympathy and support for their cause.
It's all about control, control over how the dependent vote.
Let the Liberals worry about Dion, he's their problem, keeps stepping in the poop.
Iggy's not about to let his Puffins loose to hide any of the poop either. The time isn't right for him to be the savior, he'll wait it out before releasing the birds.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-09 1:52:15 PM
Who is Dion trying to out-maneuver - Layton or Harper?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-09 2:14:21 PM
There is no poverty in Ontario.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-09 2:25:08 PM
There is no real poverty in canada, except perhaps for those reserves where the chiefs have pissed away all the government money on themselves.The social engineers have decided arbitralily that someone who is unable to afford cable TV , has no internet access or cannot afford dry-cleaning on a regular basis is living in poverty.
Show me one person in canada that is starving and/or cannot find shelter and I'll show you a person that is either mentally ill or just pathalogically irresponsible.
Posted by: atric | 2007-11-09 3:42:06 PM
. . . and have you noticed how many of these "poor" have a serious weight problem!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 3:43:48 PM
That's because they cannot afford fitness club memberships.
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-09 3:45:02 PM
Aha! Then they really are poor!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 3:46:54 PM
"Public affluence, private poverty".
I believe that this written to describe the official government policies of the Crooked Liberal Party du Canada.
And who is Dufus Dion trying to kid?
Everybody knows that being a Liberal is like winning a lottery (when they are the govt), you just don't know exactly when the phone call will come to announce the Senate/commission/govt appointment, or the no-bid fat govt contract, etc, etc, etc.
Poverty is about item 999 on a list of 100 things to do for the Crooked Liberal Party du Canada to do.
Always has been, always will be.
Enjoy the wilderness Crooks.
Posted by: rockyt | 2007-11-09 4:46:33 PM
It's obvious that this is another in a long line of Dion attempts to help the Liebral party's fortunes. Like the others, it will fail. In fact, it failed as soon as he announced it. I support Dion as Liebral leader because they're going nowhere so long as he is in charge.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-09 4:47:54 PM
Yeah! Under Mulroney there was NO poverty. It's those evil satanist Liberals who created it! And if elected, they won't help them! They will FEAST ON THEIR SOULS!!!!!!
Posted by: Brian Child | 2007-11-09 5:01:35 PM
Here's some questions for Dion - how do you define poverty? (hint: it's not LICOs - they measure relative inequality of income, so as long as there is inequality of income, even if we are millionaires, there would still be "poverty"). Second, what are your specific policies to attack poverty? What action plan do you propose, how will it be paid for, and where is a track record of success you can draw on? Third, who do think will actually vote for this? Motherhood statements about how hard it is to be poor don't do a thing. What puts more people into "poverty" than anything else - income tax. That should be a hint for the statists; however, but they'll never see it. Brian Child - try to make sense - Mulroney hasn't been PM for over 14 years, for cryin out loud.
Posted by: Shamrock | 2007-11-09 5:41:13 PM
la citroen said he would give working class people a tax break!--wait a sec...On my radio I heard that.
thing is, if stuffi gave tax breaks to working folks he'll be MORE than inclined to take it away with DrydenCare,
Posted by: reg dunlop | 2007-11-09 5:46:23 PM
These Liberals will screw everyone to get elected.
Posted by: dewp | 2007-11-09 6:00:46 PM
dewp ~
If there isn't a law against that already, there should be!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 6:04:55 PM
Hey, DeYawn - read 'em and weep:
"New poll puts Tories closer to majority"
OTTAWA - Fuelled by unprecedented support in Quebec, the federal Conservative party has zoomed to 42 per cent support among decided voters, a high water mark that puts Prime Minister Stephen Harper closer to his goal of winning a majority government, a new national Ipsos-Reid poll says.
The survey said that while the Tories were up three points from last week, the Liberals remained stuck 14 points back with the support of 28 per cent of voters. The NDP rebounded two points to 15 per cent and the Green party held steady at seven per cent.
The poll, conducted exclusively for CanWest News Service and Global National, also said the Conservatives were enjoying new-found levels of support in Quebec. For the first time, the Tories were tied with the normally dominant Bloc Quebecois. Each party had the support of 31 per cent of the decided voters. The Liberals trailed at 23 per cent, although they were up six points from last week. The NDP had the support of 10 per cent, and the Green party five per cent.
AND THE 23% LIBERAL support is top-heavy in the English community, which means they will be completely shut out in EVERY French riding. It also means that the Bloc is likely to come in second to the Conservatives in total seats in Quebec - the beginning of the end for that loser of a party. They have achieved nothing except collect fat salaries for over a decade.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 6:29:14 PM
That's good news obc.
Liberals want the poor to be out there so they can manipulate them. Use them as welfare-slaves and blackmail the poor during the elections.- Winston
That is a fact, Winston. The lib-left has commanded Poverty, Inc. forever. Poverty statistics are now a club to beat whomever's in charge. The real name of the lib-left game is envy. Just tell the poor that YOU will take their rich neighbours down a few notches, tax-wise. Now we have a huge army of so-called civil service workers that hide in cubicles dreaming up ways to redistribute incomes in order to bribe people for their votes.
The #1 thing missing in most discussions of poverty IMHO is that the rates mentioned in our MSM invariably quote Statistics Canada's LICO rate, and refer to it as the "poverty rate". This is very misleading, because (as Shamrock said) LICO is a relative measure of affluence, not a measure of how many lack food, shelter, and clothing. The poverty industry has managed to expand the definition of poverty to include many things we would not consider necessities of life. Because LICO is a relative measure, there will always be a lower group in society.
The second serious omission is the fact that people who are classified as poor by the MSM are a varied and ever-changing population. Students, retirees, and part-timers are all lumped into LICO. Many, if not most of them either progress to higher incomes (students, returning-to-the-workforce parents), or do not have mortgages and other early family expenses.
The following is a press release from the Fraser Institute, the most cogent free market research organization in Canada, if not the world.
NEWS RELEASE
Poverty in Canada Hits Record Low
Release Date: November 09, 2006
Toronto, ON - The proportion of Canadians living in poverty fell to 4.9 per cent in 2004, the lowest level in history, according to a new report published by The Fraser Institute, Poverty in Canada: 2006 Update.
“Poverty rates have decreased substantially, falling to 4.9 per cent in 2004 from 7.8 per cent in 1996,” said report author Chris Sarlo, a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute and Nipissing University economics professor. “This fall in poverty rates is especially encouraging following a lengthy period of stagnation throughout the 1980s and early to mid-1990s.”
Dramatic improvements were also recorded in the proportion of children living in poverty. Child poverty rates nearly halved between 1996 and 2004, falling to 5.8 per cent from 10.9 per cent.
Sarlo uses the “basic needs” approach to measure poverty by determining the level of income individuals or families need to buy the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and other household essentials. Canadians are considered to be in a state of poverty when they lack the income necessary to buy these basic needs.
“All too often, claims about the number of poor in Canada are based on Statistics Canada’s low income cutoff lines (LICO). However, Statistics Canada repeatedly warns that it is not a poverty measure but rather a ‘relative’ measure of how well off some Canadians are compared to others,” Sarlo said.
“Poverty is fundamentally a problem of insufficiency, not inequality. If we want to understand how Canadians are doing, we need to know how many of our fellow citizens cannot afford the basic necessities of life.”
Contact: Chris Sarlo
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: (705) 472-1733
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/newsrelease.aspx?nid=4137
Posted by: Larry | 2007-11-09 7:36:02 PM
“Poverty rates have decreased substantially, falling to 4.9 per cent in 2004
Hmmmm. Isn't that close to the number of unemployed?
What can we deduce from this, Class? Think hard now.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 7:42:47 PM
Dion is moving the Liberals more and more to the left, if Layton would be smart will move an inch to the right more than the Liberals, outflanked them and the Liberals will loose all their support.
Posted by: Sam Ruisser | 2007-11-09 8:18:55 PM
"if Layton would be smart"
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha ! ! ! ! ! !
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-09 8:24:08 PM
Child poverty is usually a result of parents who don't know how to manage money. Children themselves have no wealth nor any ability to get any. It's the parents we are talking about here. I have rarely met a so-called poverty parent who didn't do one or more of the following.
smoke
drink beer or other alcoholic beverage
eat junk food
play bingo
buy lottery tickets
shop at the 7-11
do drugs
refuse to get and keep a job ... any job
It is possible to live on very little money in Canada especially with all the food banks and other charities available to help. This is not to mention that there are usually family relatives who could help. Often they won't help because they know what will be done with much of the money handed over to those 'needy' family members.
Most people, not all, but most, are in predicaments of their own making. This is a country filled with opportunity and possibility. There are government program up the ass and a myriad of private and not for profit groups lined up waiting to get the warm fuzzies.
There is not excuse to be a loser in Canada. This is a winning country and the never-ending guilt trip laid upon us by the Left and pretend Left, is over.
Harper has the right idea to continue to war on pretend poverty and that is to lower taxes which will help the private sector create more employment. I might add that governments can only create jobs in this way. Hiring more government workers is not job creation. Even clowns know that by now.
Sarlo is right on and from one North Bayite to another, thanks for your article.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-09 8:29:39 PM
Dion's hidden agenda is implementation of "social justice" and he's going to manipulate the poor to get there.
Posted by: johndoe124 | 2007-11-09 9:53:36 PM
The single greatest source of 'child poverty' is single,teenage 'Mummies', hapless breeders that don't have two-thin-dimes to rub together nor the ability to earn a dime! They hook-up, drop-out, willing recepticles for dead-beats with no intention of hanging around,simply interested in sowing their 'wild-oats'. Liberals will never murmur a word of incrimination on this phenonmena lest they offend fragile free-range souls.There is a demographic in this country that lives by that credo, where the soul provider is the welfare state and we are all painfully aware of the total social breakdown as a consequence of that life choice. Yet this madness goes unchallenged and the vicious circle becomes a generational dysfunctionality. A solution ... condoms ..... in every case of beer!!!!!! Seriously their needs to be an aggresive campaign in schools for kids to aguire as much education as possible, get a job, build a bank account, travel, experience life and delay breeding till well into the late twenties. That in itself would eliminate 90% of child poverty. ........ Mon/dad don't be a child....
Posted by: Kamel Krazie | 2007-11-10 3:47:58 AM
>" if Layton would be smart will move an inch to the right more than the Liberals, outflanked them and the Liberals will loose all their support."
Posted by: Sam Ruisser | 9-Nov-07 8:18:55 PM
Ain't gonna happen.
From the NDP website:
Created 2006-09-10 10:05
Anne McGrath Elected NDP President
Bilingual NDP Activist Receives Strong Mandate
QUEBEC CITY - The last day of the NDP Federal Convention kicked off this morning with the election of Anne McGrath as the new President of the New Democratic Party.
"We are thrilled that Anne has been elected President. Anne is a true leader and her ideas will bring new energy and momentum to our party," NDP leader Jack Layton said."
(end quote)
Anne McGrath, newly elected NDP president ran as a candidate for the COMMUNIST PARTY of CANADA in Edmonton-Strathcona in the 1984 Federal Election, placing seventh.(my thanks to Zeb for pointing this out)
There aren't going to be any shifts to the right for the NDP.
In addition, the Left knows that there needs to be a minimum of 3 national parties so that the Conservatives can forever be portrayed as 'Extreme Right', which keeps the Conservatives comfortably left, and prevents a 2 party system that will allow Canadians to have a clear choice between the (red)Devil and the deep Blue Sea.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-10 4:54:37 AM
The only solution to solving proverty is finishing high school (which by the way is FREE in Canada) and maybe even going onto post secondary school (not necesssarily university) AND not having kids when you are 15, 16, or 17 (or at least until you have finished high school). We have adjusted the high school currciulum to that all learners can succeed (at what cost in learning real skills is another issue), so not being able to finish high school is not much of an excuse. Birth control is readily available (much more than it was when I was growing up in the 70's, so if you want to have sex go ahead - but you don't have to get pregnant. Throwing more and more money at this is not going to solve anything except create another massive public program that can only be sustained through high taxes (it may be sustainable with high taxes, but that will not ensure results). But the Liberals only know one solution to every problem - create a huge publicly funded system to address the problem. Besides education, health and social services are provincial responsibilities so this is just another way for the federal government to jump into provincial responsibilities. As a society we need to up our expectations of everyone and say plainly - it is not acceptable to drop out of high school, it is not acceptable to be a single teenage mom, it is not acceptable for fathers to not provide financial support to the children the have produced, it is not acceptable for parents to waste money on frills rather than providing their children with what is needed (and a big screen TV is not a need!). Surprisingly, these actions require very little money. So I guess the Liberals will not be supporting this.
Posted by: MJM | 2007-11-10 6:47:41 AM
"Surprisingly, these actions require very little money. So I guess the Liberals will not be supporting this."
BINGO! We have a winner!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-10 6:54:04 AM
Winston said all that need be said. They use the poor, they need the poor to blackmail them at election time as another ploy to keep power.
They use the same tactics with immigrants. It's vote Liberal or there'll be untold consequences.
Liberals have nothing on the old Snake Oil
Salesmen.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-10 6:56:10 AM
Here is a thought. Liberals want national daycare for the poor. Who are the poor who need this. How about unwed mothers that never finished school.
So, put daycare spaces in highschools, for these girls. They could even start a course on parenting. Free daycare AS LONG AS YOU STAY IN SCHOOL AND GRADUATE. All highschool boys would be required to spend 1 hr/day, working in said daycare. Those that are fathers would see the consequences of their actions, those that are not might not become fathers, till married.
Give the mothers their welfare pymts, as long as they are in school. Cut them off if they quit. We are paying them anyway, make them earn it.
Think of the benefits, at least 2 yrs of proper care for the babies, food, warmth, shots etc.
Not every school would need a daycare, but make it possible for students that need one could get to them.
Years ago, in one high school a young mother could not get a sitter for a couple of days so she took the baby to school. It was a great sucess as several students helped care for it.
First time a lot of them had seen a baby up close. Others did the same when no sitter was available. Result, pregnacy decreased by 50%.
Who knows, if this came about some of those students might vote when they reached 18.
Posted by: MaryT | 2007-11-10 10:17:25 AM
"Dion pledges to slash poverty rates in Canada if elected PM"
hee hee hee silly Liberal...yeah sure...and the check is in the mail, I promise not to come in your mouth and I promise I'll call you next week.
UH HUH.....offering Dionomics as a cure for povery is like offering promiscuity as a cure for the clap.
Posted by: bobyeruncle | 2007-11-10 10:47:24 AM
Dion is speaking in Librano code again...the LPC has about as much empathy for poor people as they do for anything else...they are a corporate cartel brokerage party...everything tey look at is viewd only for its potental to be politically exploited.
They don't want to eradicate poverty...they want to culture it...make a partisan plantaion of the underclass...milk it for votes with lush promises and maintain it with superficial largess just enough to keep the poor interested but not enough to eradicate the reliance of the poor on partisan largesse....totally eliminating poverty is always one more election away...always just out of reach....the Dems played this game with inner city blacks for 5 decades.
Someone here said that Dion is stealing Layton's racket...I think that's true...scamming the "poor" is part of the Dipper racketeering regime.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux | 2007-11-10 11:04:22 AM
..."Liberals and helping the poor" in the same breath - gives new meaning to the word "oxymoron"
Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-11-10 12:06:11 PM
"They don't want to eradicate poverty"
I don't know about that. Didn't the Creton try to eradicate it when he choked that homeless man a few years back? :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-10 1:23:02 PM
"Do you think it's easy to make priorities?"
Canadians will have heard Dion's mangled accent and shrill tone so many times by the next election, the only question left is do he or Jack Layton become the next Leader of the Opposition?
Posted by: JP | 2007-11-10 1:43:31 PM
Jacko Layton has had a head of steam since he had a one-off win in Quebec. He's been sniffing through his mustache like crazy ever since.
The way Dion is going, disoriented and all, confused about where the hell he is, thought he was in New Brunswick when in fact he was in PEI.
Jacko may well have to take over, maybe not officially, that's a numbers thing, but he can keep on making statements and mischief for the Liberals, that's as good as it will get for both of them.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-10 2:46:24 PM
I think you are incorrect obc; Crouton was going on walks and sitting on park benches conversing with his invisible homeless bud. The victim of his chokehold was just a liberal malcontent like the rest of us. :)
Posted by: badbeta | 2007-11-10 2:54:58 PM
badbeta !
My bad - :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-10 2:59:31 PM
Did anyone see the Toronto Sun's cartoon today? It implies that Dion's plan is the same as others put forward by other Liebral leaders over the years.
I think Dion was misunderstood: he didn't say war on poverty; he said war on prosperity! That's why he wants to raise taxes.
He is, however, no more pathetic than the people of Ontario who now want to bring in racial segregation. From there it is an easy step towards slavery and even a Final Solution.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-10 3:03:34 PM
Let's concede Ontario to the Liberals. The people deserve them, they're a perfect blend in the what's in it for me world of the Leftoid/Socialists who flock to the Liberals in the province.
Let them sit and complain while they contemplate their navels as they become the next have-not province under McGuinty and have to go begging to a Conservative government in Ottawa.
It would be foolish to assume Ontario won't have racial segregation in the school system in Toronto.
McGuinty has washed his hands of it, saying it's up to the school boards. Does that mean another cop out, if they say so, he's not going to object?
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-11-10 4:37:55 PM
Zebulon Pike - He is, however, no more pathetic than the people of Ontario who now want to bring in racial segregation. From there it is an easy step towards slavery and even a Final Solution.
1. Do you live in Canada?
2. Do you live in Ontario?
3. Do any of your taxes pay for the Toronto school system?
You might want to read this. Oh my!! It's in the US.
Solution.http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0608/p14s01-legn.html
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-10 5:11:38 PM
"A public magnet school, it welcomes people of all backgrounds, but 99 percent of its 300 students are African-American."
Note the phrase: "it welcomes people of all backgrounds". That means it is voluntary and non-exclusive. Toronto's plan is forced racial segregation along the lines seen in the Jim Crow US South and in Apartheid South Africa - which many people, white and black, fought against for decades. If people voluntarily subscribe to the idea, then it is their responsibility for good or for worse.
None of your questions have any relevance to this debate. I mock Toronto's attempts to rationalize their white supremacy. I spit on their city and hope bad things (no, WORSE things) happen to them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-10 5:18:24 PM
So Dion learned his geographry from Sir Paul and Heather, when they didn't know where they were when protesting the seal hunt.
Posted by: MaryT | 2007-11-10 5:20:58 PM
Zebulon Pike - Toronto's plan is forced racial segregation along the lines seen in the Jim Crow US South and in Apartheid South Africa
If anyone is forcing blacks to have an all black school in Toronto, it's blacks themselves.
And of course you won't answer the questions because you live in Alabama.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-10 5:25:45 PM
How bad must the Apartheid in Ontario be if the African-Canadians themselves are asking for segregation! I'd say it's damn near slavery.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-10 7:23:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.