Canadian Federal Election 2015

[Victorian Gray]

campaign video for an independent candidate here in BC. It's a hoot, eh? :biggrin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ&feature=youtu.be

 

[cbrunny]

So in 1776 Americans threw off the boot of British oppression, and two hundred years later Canadians said "Hey . . . That, um, thingy they did. And that paper thingy they have. Maybe we should, like, maybe work on getting us one, eh?"

Yeah . . . When America finally legalizes drugs, we know who's bogarting the good stuff.

lol not quite. Canada has been around since 1867 with an ever increasing degree of independence from the crown until 1982 when it became as complete as it ever will.

 

[Spungo]

Being in Sask what pissed me off about Trudeau was his flip 'Why should I sell your wheat?' comment to reporters
Why? because the Federal government setup the Homesteaders act where anybody who immigrated to Sask HAD to break the land and grow crops otherwise they couldn't get property. The Feds desperately wanted a population on the prairies because of the new railroad had to have commercial flow, not to mention the Crowe rate.
That's why jackass, the Federal government created the situation now deal with it.

How long is long enough for things like the Homesteaders act? This is a real question. I have no idea.

http://www.ehow.com/about_6080084_canadian-homestead-act.html

The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 is the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Homestead Act of 1862.

You're talking about something that happened 143 years ago in Canada and 153 years ago in the US. I can understand outrage if the government said in 1872 that you can get land if you settle, and then they turn their backs to farmers in 1880, just 8 years later, but you're talking about something that happened multiple generations ago. Even 1 generation seems long enough for something like that. My dad was born in Saskatchewan, my mom was born in Alberta, I was born in Washington, one grandmother was born in England, one grandfather was born somewhere in Canada (English grandma moved to Canada with him after the war), and my other grandparents are from Ukraine. I can't even guess where my family would be in 1872. Just going back 2 generations spans multiple countries, and you're talking about people who settled 6 generations ago as if there's no expectation people will move when circumstances change.

However I don't hold Justin accountable for his dad's sins, I think people just look at him like a Silver Spoon as apposed to somebody who has had to earn it.

True, but we tend to think people are like their relatives. Saying the name Jeb Bush makes me want to throw up. I know Jeb is not George, but he's related. He might be similar. I know I'm not my dad, but I'm a lot like him. I have the same career as him, I have the same education as him, I have similar political beliefs. My brother is a bit like me. His beliefs are very similar to mine, but his personality is very different.

Prior to 1982, if Canada wanted to make any laws, they were first passed by Parliament in Canada and then passed by Parliament in England.

Yikes. I did attended Canadian public school for a few years, which was excellent btw, and I remember reading about the last time the Queen of England vetoed a Canadian bill. It forced an election, the same guy was elected again with a larger majority, and the queen never did that again. There seem to be a lot of formal titles that don't really mean anything.

The Canadian system is really weird. It's like the American system, but Canada's sort-of president has absolutely zero power. Here's the breakdown of jobs:
America's head of state is the president. He is the third branch of government because he is separate from congress, the senate, and the supreme court. He can't really start things (congress) or change things (supreme court), but he does have the power to stop or "veto" things. In theory, anyway.
Canada's head of state is confusing enough that I had to google it. Apparently, the queen of England is still technically the head of state. The Governor General of Canada is not the head of state, but he or she acts on behalf of the crown. It's sort of like how your lawyer is not you, but your lawyer does things on your behalf.
The guy we think of as the Canadian president, the prime minister, is actually equivalent to the house majority leader. Harper's US equivalent would be Kevin McCarthy.

I like the Canadian system a little better just because the person leading the country gets yelled at on a regular basis. I'm sure Obama receives tons of death threats in the mail, but that's not the same as being yelled at in person. This is the kind of stuff Canadians and Brits deal with:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhpXhxP-WU
I would love to see Bush get verbally bitch slapped on a weekly basis.

 

[cbrunny]

The Prime Minister has overwhelmingly more power than the house majority leader. Our senate is largely figurative, meaning our PM gets the policy they want. In Canada party whipping is taken way more seriously than in the USA. If you vote against your party you get kicked out of your party and ostracized. No one does it except in exceptional circumstances.

It's pretty well established that the Canadian PM has more power than the President or any member of American government. Relatively speaking, of course. PM controls everything.

Edit: the queen is considered head of state. The PM is considered head of government. The American President is considered both.

 

[KMFJD]

Being in Sask what pissed me off about Trudeau was his flip 'Why should I sell your wheat?' comment to reporters
Why? because the Federal government setup the Homesteaders act where anybody who immigrated to Sask HAD to break the land and grow crops otherwise they couldn't get property. The Feds desperately wanted a population on the prairies because of the new railroad had to have commercial flow, not to mention the Crowe rate.
That's why jackass, the Federal government created the situation now deal with it.

However I don't hold Justin accountable for his dad's sins, I think people just look at him like a Silver Spoon as apposed to somebody who has had to earn it.

During a visit to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on July 17, 1969, Trudeau met with a group of farmers who were protesting the Canadian Wheat Board. The widely remembered perception is that Trudeau dismissed the protesters' concerns with "Why should I sell your wheat?" – however, he had asked the question rhetorically and then proceeded to answer it himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

 

[desy]

My dad immigrated in 1957
He was handed a train ticket in Toronto and was told he'd be heading to Saskatchewan to be a farm labourer, period. Federal policy was to push people here for decades not just when the Act started. Centrist policies have kept Sask producing but discouraged from innovating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_Rate
Although popular with farmers, these reduced rates were not cost-effective for the railway and provided central Canadian manufacturers and grain ports with an unfair advantage.

This subsidy didn't end until the 80's 'modified' and discouraged any value added processing to be developed locally. Ship heavy raw unprocessed grain to Ontario so they can make mini-wheats.

They tried to setup a Pasta plant in Swift Current which failed because they had to pay Wheat board prices when a farmer could have negotiated his own price avoided transportation cost and go straight to the plant.. Not allowed, which is why the Conservatives pushed hard to end the Wheat board. Going over the border to better negotiated prices to fill empty railcars in the US? Nope a farmer can't have a geographical advantage over another under wheat board rules.

That's why the Feds were duty bound to sell our wheat, they gamed the system so they were the only option
I was alive when he made that comment, the sound bite on the news over and over was his question which enraged the agricultural community
From the wiki link, this says it all 'he is sometimes regarded as the "father of Western alienation." To many westerners, Trudeau's policies seemed to favour other parts of the country, especially Ontario and Quebec, at their expense'

What most people don't understand about farming is that its a business and when your business fails you don't just lose your job you lose your home, a home that has been in your family for generations. Its not just a job where you flow as needed, its a high risk business with significant complexities.

 

[Spungo]

The Prime Minister has overwhelmingly more power than the house majority leader.

True, but only because the powers of a prime minster do not exist in the US system.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints cabinet members. In the US, nobody has this power. The president nominates people, but they are voted on by the senate.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints senate members. In the US, nobody has this power. Senators are elected.

Outside of appointing people to unelected positions, their powers are somewhat comparable. The house and senate majority leaders have a lot more power than people realize. In cases of Canada or UK or Australia having a minority government, a US majority leader arguably has more power than a prime minister due to the 2 party system. A minority government prime minister can whip people all day and still get outvoted by the other members of parliament. It's impossible to put numbers on the amount of things that don't get passed by a minority government since having a vote fail results in a vote of no confidence, which can force an election to be called. Things that may not pass are never brought to the table, and we can't count things that didn't happen.
The majority leader in the US is the one telling the party how to vote. If he or she wants something stopped, it gets stopped. Harry Reid, former senate majority leader, was called an obstructionist because he was able to stonewall everything. He might not be appointing cabinet ministers, but he does have tremendous power when it comes to getting things passed or rejected. Of course, he's not acting alone. He talks to the president, he talks to the house leader, he talks to other members of the party, etc.

Our senate is largely figurative, meaning our PM gets the policy they want.

Sort of like the US. Harry Reid says no - that means no. Some majority leaders and prime minsters are stricter than others.

In Canada party whipping is taken way more seriously than in the USA. If you vote against your party you get kicked out of your party and ostracized. No one does it except in exceptional circumstances.

I don't know about democrats, but the republican party is very strict like this. Say something about climate change and you're finished. I think it's a conservative mentality in general. There have been quite a few studies showing that conservative people are more team-oriented, and they value loyalty over correctness. When framed like that, a lot of politics suddenly make sense. Yeah Bush fucked up, but we need to defend him! He's on our team!

That's why the Feds were duty bound to sell our wheat, they gamed the system so they were the only option

What is the deal with governments and fucking with things? IIRC, Canada has like 1 or 2 milk companies and 1 sugar company, Rogers Sugar, which I own a few shares of. Milk in Canada is absurdly expensive due to government fuckery. Corn in the US is absurdly cheap due to fuckery, and the cheap corn is actually responsible for the creation of Mexican drug cartels because US-subsidized corn is sold below the cost of production, meaning Mexican farmers need to get into drugs if they want to make some money. Why can't we just stop all of this nonsense? Stop subsidies and legalize drugs. If you can't make money growing corn, try growing marijuana or coca.

 

[desy]

Well
The wheat board and crow are gone.
Still have dairy marketing boards to keep Quebec happy though.
In the US since they consume 80% of what they grow a subsidy is just wealth distribution.
In Canada Ag subsides might as well be called foreign aid cause we export 80%
As this buggery is why our US brothers call us Social commies 😉

 

[cbrunny]

True, but only because the powers of a prime minster do not exist in the US system.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints cabinet members. In the US, nobody has this power. The president nominates people, but they are voted on by the senate.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints senate members. In the US, nobody has this power. Senators are elected.

Outside of appointing people to unelected positions, their powers are somewhat comparable. The house and senate majority leaders have a lot more power than people realize. In cases of Canada or UK or Australia having a minority government, a US majority leader arguably has more power than a prime minister due to the 2 party system. A minority government prime minister can whip people all day and still get outvoted by the other members of parliament. It's impossible to put numbers on the amount of things that don't get passed by a minority government since having a vote fail results in a vote of no confidence, which can force an election to be called. Things that may not pass are never brought to the table, and we can't count things that didn't happen.
The majority leader in the US is the one telling the party how to vote. If he or she wants something stopped, it gets stopped. Harry Reid, former senate majority leader, was called an obstructionist because he was able to stonewall everything. He might not be appointing cabinet ministers, but he does have tremendous power when it comes to getting things passed or rejected. Of course, he's not acting alone. He talks to the president, he talks to the house leader, he talks to other members of the party, etc.

Right, but then House legislation has to go from the house to the senate to the president's desk. All of which can potentially end it without any battles or fanfare, or could fight on through to the bitter end, or sail through somehow. In Canada, Parliament passes the PM's legislation because his party controls the majority of seats, the senate passes it as formality, the GG signs it as formality, then its law. The PM gets what they want 100% of the time in a majority situation. That's tremendously more power than either a House or Senate majority leader.

Minority is different of course, as you've suggested.

 

[cbrunny]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...deau-grow-the-economy-from-the-heart-outwards

“We’re proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards,” said Trudeau.

Well hot damn. It's about time someone suggested growing the economy with hugs and rainbows and feelings. That'll do it.

What a fucking cockbag this guy is.

 

[desy]

There is only so much manipulation a government can do.
If the world economy is in the dumper then as a exporting country so is ours.
Being able to mitigate the pendulum swings is what all those Ag subsidies I mentioned are supposed to do.
Creating balance across a huge geographical and diverse economy will always be a challenge. The good thing is that it is diverse, commodities down manufacturing up.
One of the reasons I support confederation, we have so much and so few that we should be able to ride out peaks and valleys.
Social policy is where I look at politicians, dignified death? cmon conservatives you can't tell baby booms they have suffer til their last gasp.

 

[Spungo]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...deau-grow-the-economy-from-the-heart-outwards

After clicking this, I think my blood pressure doubled. It's a picture of a politician holding a baby. Look at that! He likes babies! As opposed to the other politicians who put babies in microwave ovens.
I don't blame the politician. He obviously knows that people are stupid enough to be manipulated by something that has nothing to do with politics. Putin being on horse without a shirt comes to mind.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made his first campaign trip to the Saskatchewan heartland Wednesday with the message that his party will grow the economy not from the “top down,” but from the “heart outwards.”

For those not familiar with top down vs bottom up, top down means an direction is figured out first, and implementation comes second. This is also known as central planning in economics or creationism in religion.
Bottom up is when things happen without a leader. This is called free market capitalism in economics or evolution in biology.
Heart outward would imply something that is neither, so it's not planned nor unplanned.

Speaking at a farmers market in Regina, Trudeau said putting more money in the pockets of the middle class is the ticket for his party to win more support in Saskatchewan, where the Liberals have only one seat and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives hold the rest.

This makes a lot of sense. Redistributing wealth isn't really top down, but it's not bottom up either.

“We’re proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards,” said Trudeau.

Does he know what top down means? Right wing economic plans are typically bottom up - do nothing and hope that something good happens. Left wing plans are typically top down. Example: California giving subsidies for selling electric cars. That's top down planning. Top down isn't always a bad thing. Seatbelts in all cars are an example of top down planning.

“Why else would they send government cheques to millionaires just because they happen to have children?” said Trudeau

Because they're Canadians too, you stupid wise and beautiful woman. How do people tolerate this kind of hate-filled nonsense? Let's kick rich kids out of public school! They're rich, so fuck them. Let's remove their right to universal healthcare. Let's remove their right to police and fire protection. Let's remove their right to subsidized daycare and school lunches. They're rich, so they should hire their own security and pay for private education. This is absolutely disgusting. If you're going to help families, you should help all families.

Creating balance across a huge geographical and diverse economy will always be a challenge.

Which is why federal governments should be as small as possible. The only people who understand your problems are the people who have your problems. I don't expect people in Saudi Arabia to understand the challenges in my life, so how is it any less silly to expect Ottawa to care for Saskatchewan? The fate of each state, province, and territory should be left in the hands of those who live there. That means programs should be run on a state, provincial, or territorial level. A lot of things should be run on the city level.

 

[werepossum]

After clicking this, I think my blood pressure doubled. It's a picture of a politician holding a baby. Look at that! He likes babies! As opposed to the other politicians who put babies in microwave ovens.
I don't blame the politician. He obviously knows that people are stupid enough to be manipulated by something that has nothing to do with politics. Putin being on horse without a shirt comes to mind.
SNIP

I always picture a handler saying "Okay, let's run through this one more time, sir. You shake hands and you kiss babies, not . . . that was just wrong on so many levels."

 

[Iron Woode]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...deau-grow-the-economy-from-the-heart-outwards



Well hot damn. It's about time someone suggested growing the economy with hugs and rainbows and feelings. That'll do it.

What a fucking cockbag this guy is.

don't worry.

the budget will balance itself.

 

[Whiskey16]

Milk in Canada is absurdly expensive due to government fuckery.

An interesting relative view.

Canada isn't the socialist economy of the USA where dairy farmers reap the benefits of exteme subsidies tallying around a taxpayers handputs of 60% of every $ spent.

 

[Spungo]

don't worry.

the budget will balance itself.

That's always a winning strategy. Remember Romney and that guy who lied about how fast he runs? Here's our plan to reduce the deficit: . Any questions?
Also, John Kerry vs Bush. "We don't have a plan or anything. Just vote for me because I'm not Bush." Yeah, that worked great.

IIRC, the last Canadian federal election was a bit like that as well. The leader of the liberals was a guy with no plan. His whole platform was "I'm not Harper." He wasn't very convincing with that argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011
Change in seats: loss of 34 seats (they lost 56% of their seats)

 

[Spungo]

An interesting relative view.

Canada isn't the socialist economy of the USA where dairy farmers reap the benefits of exteme subsidies tallying around a taxpayers handputs of 60% of every $ spent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...airy-industry-to-dump-supply/article25030753/

In a free market, surpluses would typically lead to lower consumer prices, but that isn’t the case in Canada because prices are fixed, she pointed out. “The system can’t accommodate fluctuations in demand,” said Ms. Findlay, who has written a series of reports advocating the dismantling of the supply management system.

Can't have the proles consuming too much nutrition. Poor people should live on water and Kool Aid so their bones are brittle and they can't cause too much ruckus.

 

[Whiskey16]

Spungo, the current government has been conducting secret negotiations with the TPT where the USA isn't about to change its decrepit and excessive subsidies for its argriculture while apparently Canada is to drop its regional boards in return for opening is markets to the products from the likes of US goods sold well below their true cost of production. Free market of the USA is a scam. We should never open our market up to a hypocritical state that subsidises its inudustries with the hope for foreign potential competitors to fail under the overhwhelming scale of product dumping invasion.

That's among the many ills that the Harper Government is continueing to screw the interests and health for the majority of Canadians over.

This thread had become quite the joke of argueing for the status quo for fears of entities from 3 or 4 decades ago. Falling right in love with the Conservative redirective spin from their incredible long list of failures and even crimes.

 

[Whiskey16]

don't worry.

the budget will balance itself.

Who ever claimed that other than misquotes out of context by the Conservative Party of Canada?

 

[Whiskey16]

Because they're Canadians too, you stupid wise and beautiful woman. How do people tolerate this kind of hate-filled nonsense?

You truly are angry and deranged..... Justify to us why relative high income earned should gain equal benefits as opposed to efficiently directing foods benefits to the portion of the population that can proportionately benefit more?

You're likely one of these flat tax ideologues as well... Far too extreme for Canadians.

Let's kick rich kids out of public school! They're rich, so fuck them. Let's remove their right to universal healthcare. Let's remove their right to police and fire protection. Let's remove their right to subsidized daycare and school lunches. They're rich, so they should hire their own security and pay for private education. This is absolutely disgusting. If you're going to help families, you should help all families.

You lying fear mongering twit.

Not all families are in as equal need. To benefit society one miss be efficient with policies and recognise the more economically marginalised generally do return poorer health and educational performance, therefore with the limited budgetary funds it is stupidity to waste funds on those who would benefit less, and rather direct a larger proportional of those funds that would likely return a greater benefit to society and possibly even invest to save from long term social costs

Which is why federal governments should be as small as possible. The only people who understand your problems are the people who have your problems. I don't expect people in Saudi Arabia to understand the challenges in my life, so how is it any less silly to expect Ottawa to care for Saskatchewan? The fate of each state, province, and territory should be left in the hands of those who live there. That means programs should be run on a state, provincial, or territorial level. A lot of things should be run on the city level.

You know of little. Canadian provinces generally have more power and control over their direct interests than in comparison to US states.

A smaller government? The current is the most intrusive and rights denying government, likely in Canadian history.

Care comment directly on this election? Or just continue to foolishly comment with fairly right wing ideological stances and fantasies that have little place in Canadian society?

 

[Whiskey16]

Yikes. I did attended Canadian public school for a few years, which was excellent btw...

You need more of that better education... 😉

...and I remember reading about the last time the Queen of England vetoed a Canadian bill.

..
Apparently, the queen of England is still technically the head of state.

Queen of what? There has been such a queen since the 16th century... Hell, no such monarch of England since unification, centuries ago. In the context of this topic, you mean, the Queen of Canada, who is also the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

A common demonstrable sign of incompetence by much of the US population... Bad general schooling. ^_^

 

[cbrunny]

Spungo, the current government has been conducting secret negotiations with the TPT where the USA isn't about to change its decrepit and excessive subsidies for its argriculture while apparently Canada is to drop its regional boards in return for opening is markets to the products from the likes of US goods sold well below their true cost of production. Free market of the USA is a scam. We should never open our market up to a hypocritical state that subsidises its inudustries with the hope for foreign potential competitors to fail under the overhwhelming scale of product dumping invasion.

That's among the many ills that the Harper Government is continueing to screw the interests and health for the majority of Canadians over.

source for that claim? Doesn't really make sense considering that rural folk - aka farmers - make up such a huge portion of the CPC base.

This thread had become quite the joke of argueing for the status quo for fears of entities from 3 or 4 decades ago. Falling right in love with the Conservative redirective spin from their incredible long list of failures and even crimes.

I'm not afraid of P.E.T. But his legacy is at the very least very controversial and noteworthy in the context of his inept son running for PM. THat being said, scrub PET from history and I still don't vote for Justin. I think it takes more than hugs and feelings to correct our economy.

At this point, I'd vote for Mulcair a hundred times before I'd vote for Justin once.

While I have no issue (large enough to jsutify not doing it, which is to say I don't fully agree for some complex reasons but none of which are strong enough to get in the way of other people's liberty, I think) with legalization of marijuana, that's a niche issue. It isn't a real issue. it's niche no matter how you slice it. The more trudeau touts around his stance on this, the less I want to vote for him because he simply isn't talking about stuff that matters. If the economy was golden and everyone was super happy and policy was in line, then I'd say yes, lets talk about that. But it is so far down the priority list for me that it is childish to try to convince me to vote for him for it. Not that I would anyway, but you get the point.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Go NDP go. I support green too. Conservatives have got to go. I typically agree with conservative values but this conservative government is run like a dictatorship, we're Just Not Ready(tm) to put up with another term of harper. Liberals arn't as bad, but they have a history of corruption as well. It's time for change.

 

[cbrunny]

Who ever claimed that other than misquotes out of context by the Conservative Party of Canada?

From the huffington post:

The clip comes from a February interview Trudeau gave to CPAC's Peter Van Dusen shortly after the release of the federal budget.

Unfortunately, the interview was live and there does not appear to be another clip of the full interview online. (UPDATE: CPAC got in touch to let us know the interview can be viewed here at the 27:35 mark.)

Sun News' Ezra Levant provided a short transcript in a column mocking the Liberal leader's economic chops.

Van Dusen asked Trudeau how committed he would be to a balanced budget at this moment.

"Would it worry you to go into deficit in this current climate to, as you say, put more people to work?" Van Dusen asked.

"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself," the Grit leader replied.

Conservatives have since mocked Trudeau relentlessly over the "budget will balance itself" quip.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/14/trudeau-attack-ads-2014-online_n_4965474.html

Trudeau is saying that a strong economy will bring in more tax revenue and that will help to balance the budget. However, Trudeau does not address anything of value - how much he wants to spend, how much government money he thinks it will take to bring up the economy, what happens if he is wrong, what he wants to spend it on, how he will boost the middle class. I'm ok with the idea that this quote is taken out of context and we are reading too much into it, however he still provides absolutely no clarity or plan or evidence that a plan even exists, even today.

 

[cbrunny]

You truly are angry and deranged..... Justify to us why relative high income earned should gain equal benefits as opposed to efficiently directing foods benefits to the portion of the population that can proportionately benefit more?

You're likely one of these flat tax ideologues as well... Far too extreme for Canadians.

You lying fear mongering twit.

Not all families are in as equal need. To benefit society one miss be efficient with policies and recognise the more economically marginalised generally do return poorer health and educational performance, therefore with the limited budgetary funds it is stupidity to waste funds on those who would benefit less, and rather direct a larger proportional of those funds that would likely return a greater benefit to society and possibly even invest to save from long term social costs

This comment has me thinking about PET a bit. I mean, really you guys are arguing about a definition of 'equality' and it is absolutely an argument that is worth having. I say it reminds me of PET because PET believed in equality being equal for every Canadian. That's his legacy - the CRF. Equal protections/rights/freedoms for all. Not means-tested protections/rights/freedoms.

I'm admittedly torn on the child benefit stuff. On one hand, I'm totally ok with a needs based approach to child benefit. On the other, I tend to lean towards a more PET-style definition of equality. There are already so many government benefits that are means-tested. I think I'm more ok with some government benefits being applied to everyone AND some government benefits being means tested than I am with all government benefits being means-tested.

Really, it probably makes more sense to scrap the child care benefit entirely and roll the savings into a means-tested tax break. I feel the same way about the Ontario Liberal's plan to subsidize electricity for low-income families by increasing rates for higher income families. Scrap that, roll it into a means-tested tax break.

But, it does feel good to get money from the government.