Canadian Politics Today

Automation is different.  If a person is able to work but genuinely can't find a job then I have no problem giving them benefits.  If there are jobs available but a healthy person refuses to work, you and I should not be paying for their income.  It's ridiculous. I would have no problem paying for them to be re-trained, and paying for their income while they are retraining.

Well that's very liberal of you! Do you think that could become an accepted talking point for the Conservative party?
I think it might have to be soon but I can't quite imagine how Alberta's Cons could ever go there? You see the problem?

So the proof is going to be in the pudding for anybody that isn't stuck in Conservative never-never land. Here's a hypothetical for you:

A person who was a machinist becomes unemployed and he turns to EI. He is offered a job as a labourer at half the rate of pay ($20) as he was earning and he refuses the job. You get the picture, you're too clever not to. Does that guy become one of your lazies?

Don't hang strictly on the hypothetical, that doesn't get us anywhere. Rather, consider variations to the general theme. So I'm suggesting that will be the point at which the Cons and the Libs could part ways

Quote

The kinds of people who propose these programs are the same types of people who allow their unemployed adult children to live for free in their basement while mom cooks them dinner and does their laundry.  They think they're being kind, but it isn't good for anyone.  We should not be incentivizing people to become dependents of the state.

Each case will be different and therefore have variables and qualifications to consider. Here's on for you:

The kid doesn't need much money and he's getting social assistance, and that's paying better than the parttime job at MacD's flipping hamburgers. Oh, and his twin brother that lives in the same basement room has a mental illness problem.

Who sorts all this **** out Gorgeous, the social worker or the government?