Sunday, May 24, 2009

Harvard Math - 8% Unemployment Worse Than 9.7%

Michael Ignatieff says these are different times, that we need to change the Employment Insurance qualifying rules due to the current economic downturn. Iggy wants a flat rate of 360 hours to qualify for up to one year of E.I., and cites the number of unemployed as the reason for these temporary changes. Now I'll be the first to admit I have no Harvard education, as a matter of fact I have only a high school and college diploma. But I am somewhat confused as to Iggy's statements that we need immediate changes for qualifying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is an 8% unemployment rate not more desirable than a 9.7% rate? My reason for asking is this. When the current qualifying rules were put in place under a Liberal government headed by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, the unemployment rate was 9.7%. As a matter of fact, when the Liberals first started to study the system in order to make changes in 1996, the unemployment rate was above 10%. And save for four months in late 1998, the unemployment rate was consistently higher than today's rate, starting in 1995, when the Liberals said the plan needed changes, to 1999. As a matter of fact, Canada had higher unemployment rates in the early 2000's than we face today. why was Iggy, or any Liberal for that matter, not arguing in favor of changes then?

Surely it had nothing to do with the fact the Liberal party balanced the budget on the backs of the unemployed with those changes made in 1996. Apparently what was prudent fiscal management and a qualifying system that was fair for Canada only applied with a Liberal government in office. Now that the Conservative's are in office, those Liberal qualifying rules are mean-spirited, and need to be changed immediately with an unemployment rate 2% lower than when the Liberals changed the system.

Anyone wanting a look at the unemployment rate over the years can do so here:

Perhaps some journalist, any journalist, might be frank enough to point this information out to Mr. Ignatieff, except for Jane Taber of course, who appears just days away from being served a restraining order for stalking Mr. Ignatieff. Iggy, that noise in the bushes isn't the wind. Be afraid, be very afraid. Think Fatal Attraction.


Anonymous said...

You may not have a Harvard Degree, but you are very learned.


Anonymous said...

You are being totally unfair to the Liberals, Harper is not stealing 54 billion so does not need to hide that fact by making EI impossible to get, further in case you have not noticed the job losses are amongst the Liberal voting bloc, not as before in the western bastion of an honest days work for an honest days pay capitalist bastards.
Further the libs needed to buy votes in Quebec and Ontario, who are you to stop the progression of the progressives? The ends justify the means and Liberals need the means to live high on the hog as is their right as the natural governing party and besides they have become accustomed to it, any divorce court will tell you when the husband(citizens) leaves the wife(Liberals) after paying for a certain living standard that standard must be kept up.
Canadians are dead beat citizens for not keeping up this living standard by with-holding both power and donations.
For shame Canada, you enabled the thefts, the waste and the champagne lifestyle and now you play the victim. how very conservative, typical of people with morals and ethics.

paulsstuff said...

Zing!! Lol

wilson said...

'..;early 2000's than we face today. why was Iggy,( or any Liberal for that matter,) not arguing in favor of changes then?

Iffy wasn't visiting Canada then,
so it doesn't count!!!
(sarc off)