Quote:
Originally Posted by darklord700
Borrowing to fund capital programs is one thing. Borrowing to pay for social program you cannot afford today is not wise. If you can't pay for it today, you can't pay for it tomorrow, then who's going to pay for it? Generations down the road are the one paying for it until the bottom falls out, just ask the Greeks.
|
Sure, which again is why the Liberal platform is the only one taking this into account! Someone (ahem, baby boomers) has to start paying for all of these services. You guys don't have to believe me (you likely won't), but the Wildrose hasn't produced anything to show that they'd be able to provide these services and actually balance the budget. Their alternative "budget" isn't a budget at all. As voters we're left to trust that they would do so because they say that they would.
The Liberals and PCs on the other hand have actually released how they would do this. The Liberals balance the budget and show how they would pay for this. I believe that they would do this and the numbers work for a few reasons:
A) There are no pie in the sky projections.
B) They show that to pay for this they would raise taxes on higher income earners. Frankly speaking, this must be the right thing to do because no political party would recommend increasing taxes as a ploy to be elected!
C) The Liberals aren't going to form government as they aren't running enough candidates to do so. For them to come out and say directly that this is what needs to happen, even though people don't want to hear it, makes sense.
I have no idea whether the Wildrose can do what they say; frankly unless you have access to some documents that I haven't seen, neither do you. They say that they can balance the budget and not impact services at all, and in many cases improve services.
Tell me again which seems more conservative in terms of their projections and being fiscally responsible, taking that into account? One party sounds like they are trying to get elected and the other is the Alberta Liberal Party.