Quote:
Originally Posted by flamesaresmokin
This has little to do with spending more money on a public program like you're suggesting and all to do with taking money away from them. When you talk about publicly funding a private arena (x2) you're talking about pulling existing dollars directed to public programs, not finding new untouched funds.
If you hand over hundreds of millions to the Flames/Oilers quite obviously funding is going to be cut to programs that are already struggling (like arts and culture, health care, education etc). Programs that don't have billionaire owners to fund them if they felt like it.
|
False dichotomy. Adding funding in one area does not necessarily mean removing it from another. One hypothetical example, though relevant really to Alberta only, would be a sudden windfall from a rapid escalation in natural gas prices. Under such a scenario, the government could lend funding to such projects without the need to either cut somewhere else or deficit spend.
Of course, I expect your response will be "but they could instead spend that windfall in other areas, such as those that I like, therefore you are still taking money away from those groups." To which I respond, "That money was not allocated, they have no inherent right to it."
Ultimately, the views you are expressing here are actually a parallel of the current CBA dispute. Which is interesting, if nothing else.