[Newsbot]

Title: Veterans don't have social contract, Ottawa says in lawsuit response
Category: Military
Posted By: Zipperfish
Date: 2014-03-18 22:43:51
Canadian

[Zipperfish]

It's "screw the veterans" Tuesday on the Hill.

[Public_Domain]

They reduced it to just Tuesday? This government really is progressive!

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

They reduced it to just Tuesday? This government really is progressive!

Ouch!



Although this bullshit ain't the least bit amusing!

[Thanos]

$1:

In 2005, Ottawa changed the way it calculates compensation for soldiers who are wounded in battle. Under the New Veterans Charter, vets are offered a lump sum payment instead of a lifetime pension.

Q: who was Prime Minister in 2005?
A: it wasn't Stephen Harper.

Just getting my two cents in before those veteran-loving Liberal supporters chime in.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

$1:

In 2005, Ottawa changed the way it calculates compensation for soldiers who are wounded in battle. Under the New Veterans Charter, vets are offered a lump sum payment instead of a lifetime pension.

Q: who was Prime Minister in 2005?
A: it wasn't Stephen Harper.

Just getting my two cents in before those veteran-loving Liberal supporters chime in.

What? It was a Liberal initiative? Oh…well then…who do these money-grubbing vets thnk they are?

The New Veterans Charter was a Conservative thing. They even have Harper's speech introducing the thing (in 2006, not 2005, incidentally).

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2006/04/06/pri ... ns-charter

Not that the Liberals wouldn't screw the vets too if they saw a buck in it. But it's more surprising for the Conservatives. A lot of those vets probably vote COnservative on the assumption that the Conservatvies will handle the forces better.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

$1:

In 2005, Ottawa changed the way it calculates compensation for soldiers who are wounded in battle. Under the New Veterans Charter, vets are offered a lump sum payment instead of a lifetime pension.

Q: who was Prime Minister in 2005?
A: it wasn't Stephen Harper.

Just getting my two cents in before those veteran-loving Liberal supporters chime in.

What? It was a Liberal initiative? Oh…well then…who do these money-grubbing vets thnk they are?

The New Veterans Charter was a Conservative thing. They even have Harper's speech introducing the thing (in 2006, not 2005, incidentally).

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2006/04/06/pri ... ns-charter

Not that the Liberals wouldn't screw the vets too if they saw a buck in it. But it's more surprising for the Conservatives. A lot of those vets probably vote COnservative on the assumption that the Conservatvies will handle the forces better.

[Thanos]

It's more of a memory hole sort of thing. The CBC is just as adept as, say, FOX at promoting something when their favourites (Liberals) are in control and condemning it when their enemies (Conservatives) are. Just the usual gag-ball routine when it comes to media fun and games. They think because the culture they live in with the politicians on a daily basis has a thirty-second attention span as they run from phoney crisis to phoney crisis that no one else has been paying attention to current events or actual recorded/provable history. Kind of some fucked up Year Zero thought processes from what I can tell. No recollection of previous events is allowed, much less ever mentioning who was in charge when what went down. The past is under lock and key, and behind a barbed wire fence, and no one's allowed to cross it in case it disturbs the current narrative.

As for the veterans, well, whatever. It's not life the benefits got cut off altogether. They were streamlined into a lump-sum payment instead of a lifelong pension. Whether or not this is a good idea or a more efficient one is practically irrelevant. The narrative's already been cast as "they hate us and they're trying to screw us!" and it's practically pointless to even attempt to discuss it. The nuke's already been tossed into the debate and destroyed any chance to discuss it logically. Kind of a repeat of the closing of some of the government offices. Hundreds of other offices are remaining open, and are well within travelling distances for practically everyone who needs to use the services, but the closure of a dozen or so out it the backwaters where it's not financially viable to keep them open anymore got cast as the Outrage Of All Outrageous Outrages.

When everything gets cast like this what's the point of even discussing any of it? All any of it is anymore has been reduced to the typical "how many times did you beat your wife?" sort of dipshittery that is purposely used to destroy debate, not to promote or enhance it.

[Freakinoldguy]

I personally don't care who did what and all I'll say on the matter is that, the Federal Government may not have a social contract with we Veterans but they definitely have a


MORAL ONE



All the bafflegab and bullshit legalese they spout is nothing more than a smoke screen for their lack of respect and unwillingness to care for the people they wantonly put in harms way.

Just another day in Ottawa. Balance a budget, fuck the Military, past and present.

[fifeboy]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I personally don't care who did what and all I'll say on the matter is that, the Federal Government may not have a social contract with we Veterans but they definitely have a


MORAL ONE



All the bafflegab and bullshit legalese they spout is nothing more than a smoke screen for their lack of respect and unwillingness to care for the people they wantonly put in harms way.

Just another day in Ottawa. Balance a budget, fuck the Military, past and present.

Well said!

[martin14]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I personally don't care who did what and all I'll say on the matter is that, the Federal Government may not have a social contract with we Veterans but they definitely have a


MORAL ONE



All the bafflegab and bullshit legalese they spout is nothing more than a smoke screen for their lack of respect and unwillingness to care for the people they wantonly put in harms way.

Just another day in Ottawa. Balance a budget, fuck the Military, past and present.

[Xort]

Thanos Thanos:

$1:

In 2005, Ottawa changed the way it calculates compensation for soldiers who are wounded in battle. Under the New Veterans Charter, vets are offered a lump sum payment instead of a lifetime pension.

Q: who was Prime Minister in 2005?
A: it wasn't Stephen Harper.

Just getting my two cents in before those veteran-loving Liberal supporters chime in.

Just like to get my two cents in that the law was passed by acclamation, so you can thank every MP in every party, no need to try and limit who to thank.

$1:

As for the veterans, well, whatever. It's not life the benefits got cut off altogether. They were streamlined into a lump-sum payment instead of a lifelong pension. Whether or not this is a good idea or a more efficient one is practically irrelevant.

A large issue is that compensation is capped at $260,000 (it changes up with inflation but that's the basic number), for a life time, while being 100% disabled.

Which means that a person that lost 3 limbs and will need life time care, and either new housing or renovations, gets 260k to make up for a life time of productive activity. And is expected to (and this a paraphrase from the veterans affairs people) 'Invest the money to ensure a lifetime income, to cover their disability related costs'.

I think that compensation that is identical to a workers compensation operated at the provincial level would be more acceptable. IE the mandate is to provide care as needed.

But I can see how you can save a lot of money with the lump sum plan. Pay them a one time payment, and then ignore them from then on because you have already given them the max amount. Saves on administrative costs in 40 years.

When the VA guys gave a talk about the new plan I asked them if they would like to exchange their workers compensation coverage for work related accidents with the new veteran's deal, and maybe they would try and get the whole federal government employees to switch too if it was so good.

[Thanos]

That's what I meant about the debate being worth having. The problem is that the overall issue's been couched in such overly-explosive and emotional rhetoric that the debate is impossible to have. "You HATE our veterans - asshole!" is the automatic response if one says the "wrong" thing. That's where the discussion's been stuck at for a long time and I see no signs of it even being possible to move past that point at all.

[Jabberwalker]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

I personally don't care who did what and all I'll say on the matter is that, the Federal Government may not have a social contract with we Veterans but they definitely have a


MORAL ONE



All the bafflegab and bullshit legalese they spout is nothing more than a smoke screen for their lack of respect and unwillingness to care for the people they wantonly put in harms way.

Just another day in Ottawa. Balance a budget, fuck the Military, past and present.

It all stems from this twisted, bullshit idea that we're not citizens of Canada, we're customers of the government. There is a huge difference between those ideas. One group feels that it is an obligation of their citizenship to help defend Canada and the other group thinks that the government is there to sell them services and that consuming them is where their responsibility to Canada ends.

[BartSimpson]

If I were a young Canadian and contemplating a career choice this decision would definitely weigh in my choice of a career at Canadian Tire over duty for a country that would kick me to the curb if I took a bullet for them.