Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Hockeyguy15]

Also UCP needs to stop being a dinosaur party trying to turn back the clock, they 100% need some new ideas and fresh faces.

[Oling_Roachinen]

It's almost worrisome, there's zero need for them to campaign on the GSA at this point. Zero. Anyone who has issues with the current GSA to the point that it was an election consideration was going to vote for UCP, that's a given. They didn't need to bring it up.

Making it known, really going out of their way to do so, that they will no longer force principals to try and help the LGBT students just shows how backwards they are. This isn't posturing to get the old Wild Rose vote, this is strictly "Gay people are against our religions, #### them."

[PsYcNeT]

Dinosaur party? I mean they only had a candidate quit for lamenting white replacement, a candidate quit because they think GSAs are trying to trick kids into being gay, and a candidate who thinks women should submit to their husbands and supports a group that performs conversion therapy.

Oh and they want to rollback LGBTQ protections because...uhm...the economy?

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Alberta is one of the best educated provinces in the confederation and Calgary was the first major Canadian city to elect a Muslim mayor. Alberta is an extremely innovative and progressive province regardless of what people think.
The fact that the rest of Canada doesn't recognize that shouldn't stop us from sticking up for Alberta and electing a party that represents the best interest of the province.
What's the other option, close down all oil and gas production, elect the NDP and watch them run the province into the ground? Sounds a lot like more "social license" talk to me and quite frankly it still wouldn't change the minds of many in Eastern Canada and BC.

All of this may be true, but doesn't change that the party who wins 99% of your provincial elections also has a racism problem.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It's almost worrisome, there's zero need for them to campaign on the GSA at this point. Zero. Anyone who has issues with the current GSA to the point that it was an election consideration was going to vote for UCP, that's a given. They didn't need to bring it up.

Making it known, really going out of their way to do so, that they will no longer force principals to try and help the LGBT students just shows how backwards they are. This isn't posturing to get the old Wild Rose vote, this is strictly "Gay people are against our religions, #### them."

This move alone tells me it's not just about pipelines and jobs, it's about ideological implementation. There was no good reason to revert back to the Education Act. None. This is purely a politicking move with no upside other than to appease a part of his voting base, who voted in favor of a motion to inform parents when children join GSA's.

Ric McIver and a couple of other MLA's pleaded against them doing this:

UCP members ignore MLA pleas to vote against gay-straight alliance motion

The motion passed with 57 per cent support even though members were being urged to vote against it by Calgary-Hays MLA Ric McIver, Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre MLA Jason Nixon, and Chestermere-Rocky View MLA Leela Aheer.

"This is about outing gay kids," McIver said, as he was jeered by the crowd. "Don't be called the Lake of Fire party, I'm begging you.

"This will really severely hurt our chances at winning. Don't do that to yourself."

Brian Coldwell, a pastor, said the motion is about parental rights.

"Governments and activists cannot have more authority over children than parents," he told the crowd. "It's not about anti-gay. It's about fundamental, God-given freedoms."

Aheer argued freedoms extend to everyone, including the right for children to have safe spaces.

"Please vote against this resolution," she said.

[PsYcNeT]

Good on McIver, Nixon and Aheer for what it's worth.

I've met Nixon a few times and even though we obviously have a massive divide on political leanings, he's a pretty good guy and a straight talker.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Good on McIver, Nixon and Aheer for what it's worth.

I've met Nixon a few times and even though we obviously have a massive divide on political leanings, he's a pretty good guy and a straight talker.

Yes, and lets be clear:

THIS IS NOT THE Nixon running in Calgary-Klein.
(I'm sure you know this, I just don't want people so skim this and think they are the same person)

I just want to make sure there is no confusion, and Jeremy Nixon doesn't get credit for something he didn't do.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I think you're under informed on the topic of child care.

My wife and I make over your threshold, own our house, have no debt other than a mortgage, own both our cars. We pay $1,200 a month for 3 days a week of daycare, if we did full time it would be close to $2,000 a month.

We 100% would go out for dinner more, or purchase more "want's", but with a huge chunk of income going to child care each month it just isn't in the cards. Yes we could find slightly cheaper care at a dayhome but we just weren't comfortable with that.

I'm generally in favour of the subsidy, so let me say that. I think it's a burden on young families to have to pay so much for childcare, and I do think that it's good for the economy to have a larger working population. But I do want to ask, hopefully without getting flamed, how much the province/everyone should pay for choices that individuals make?

I'm just quoting you because you seem rational. I see people on Twitter complaining about the cost of care, the fact that they're self-employed and don't get maternity/paternity leave and how the childcare costs are not only a cost to the woman. And while I agree with some of that, and understand the sentiment, there is a point where I can't help but think to myself "well, you made some choices here, and if that costs you more money, that's on you."

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm generally in favour of the subsidy, so let me say that. I think it's a burden on young families to have to pay so much for childcare, and I do think that it's good for the economy to have a larger working population. But I do want to ask, hopefully without getting flamed, how much the province/everyone should pay for choices that individuals make?

I'm just quoting you because you seem rational. I see people on Twitter complaining about the cost of care, the fact that they're self-employed and don't get maternity/paternity leave and how the childcare costs are not only a cost to the woman. And while I agree with some of that, and understand the sentiment, there is a point where I can't help but think to myself "well, you made some choices here, and if that costs you more money, that's on you."

Personal responsibility? How dare you!

[PsYcNeT]

It's cool to be against childcare subsidies, but on the other hand, you should in turn support increased immigration.

We're in the midst of a natural-born Canadian birthrate that's below replacement, and childcare costs are a huge reason for that. Our taxbase will collapse if we don't do one or the other.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm generally in favour of the subsidy, so let me say that. I think it's a burden on young families to have to pay so much for childcare, and I do think that it's good for the economy to have a larger working population. But I do want to ask, hopefully without getting flamed, how much the province/everyone should pay for choices that individuals make?

I'm just quoting you because you seem rational. I see people on Twitter complaining about the cost of care, the fact that they're self-employed and don't get maternity/paternity leave and how the childcare costs are not only a cost to the woman. And while I agree with some of that, and understand the sentiment, there is a point where I can't help but think to myself "well, you made some choices here, and if that costs you more money, that's on you."

I'm not complaining per se since I do agree with you that it's a choice that we made, and we are fine with it. Kids aren't cheap and it's part of the reason we decided to stop with 1 kid, it isn't just daycare that is expensive. We used to frequently have date nights out, but now we just can't do that anymore so we can't support the same businesses we used to. If we had more disposable income some would go back into the economy in places other than daycare.

Keep in mind that we do need kids to be born so that we have a younger generation to take over when we are too old. The corny 'kids are our future' thing is true. If we are making it too much of a burden to have kids and people choose to not have them that is going to be an issue years down the road.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

All of this may be true, but doesn't change that the party who wins 99% of your provincial elections also has a racism problem.

Interesting take.

At least 21 of the 86 — or one in four — candidates nominated so far under the United Conservative tent have identified themselves as members of a visible minority group.

They include East Asian, South Asian, black, Middle Eastern, mixed-race as well as indigenous and Métis, among others.

The Alberta Party is not far behind, if not on par.

The NDP is running at least 19 self-proclaimed racially diverse candidates, which is statistically comparable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...bers-1.5069776

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Slava

"well, you made some choices here, and if that costs you more money, that's on you."

As someone without kids, and following along that line of thinking, I'm initially opposed to the idea.

With that said, don't base you opinions off the lowest common denominator. Not everyone is getting knocked up unexpectedly with their 8th kid with the 5th different daddy.

Some people chose to have kids, and made the realization (probably before) that it made more sense to have a single-income household due to things like childcare costs. Does it overall hurt losing part of the workforce due to this?

Others might have made the choice understanding that it would have long-term financial impacts keeping them in poverty. But really for us to judge them for doing so is pretty dystopian.

They're poor, have single-income or dual-income but paying childcare costs on low-income, keeping them in poverty. We subsidize them in other areas anyways, but that kid grows up to be poor because it's hard to get out of the cycle when he can't go to University when he turns 18, instead he's already been working since he was 14 at a minimum wage job to help pay the bills and school is secondary to getting food on the table. He grows up, in poverty, and has kids. It repeats. If something like subsidized daycare can break the cycle, it's worth it.

And then what of the people who made the choice not to have kids in part because of childcare costs? Fertility rates are down 4%. At one point it becomes unsustainable (without immigration as stated).
https://globalnews.ca/news/4957286/a...aby-boom-over/

Just ask yourself if the policy is best for Alberta, not whether or not we should continue to punish those who made (what we deem) poor choices.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

We're in the midst of a natural-born Canadian birthrate that's below replacement, and childcare costs are a huge reason for that. .

This is false. The evidence is clear that increased labour participation correlates strongly with low fertility/birth rates, whether daycare is subsidized or not.

The article posted above links the Alberta fertility rate to economic outlook which makes much more sense. People without jobs or hope for future employment don't tend to have babies. Further raising their taxes is not going to change this.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

This is false. The evidence is clear that increased labour participation correlates strongly with low fertility/birth rates, whether daycare is subsidized or not.

The article posted above links the Alberta fertility rate to economic outlook which makes much more sense. People without jobs or hope for future employment don't tend to have babies. Further raising their taxes is not going to change this.

You think that a tax increase of any sort would equate to ~800-1000 a month?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

As someone without kids, and following along that line of thinking, I'm initially opposed to the idea.

With that said, don't base you opinions off the lowest common denominator. Not everyone is getting knocked up unexpectedly with their 8th kid with the 5th different daddy.

Some people chose to have kids, and made the realization (probably before) that it made more sense to have a single-income household due to things like childcare costs. Does it overall hurt losing part of the workforce due to this?

Others might have made the choice understanding that it would have long-term financial impacts keeping them in poverty. But really for us to judge them for doing so is pretty dystopian.

They're poor, have single-income or dual-income but paying childcare costs on low-income, keeping them in poverty. We subsidize them in other areas anyways, but that kid grows up to be poor because it's hard to get out of the cycle when he can't go to University when he turns 18, instead he's already been working since he was 14 at a minimum wage job to help pay the bills and school is secondary to getting food on the table. He grows up, in poverty, and has kids. It repeats. If something like subsidized daycare can break the cycle, it's worth it.

And then what of the people who made the choice not to have kids in part because of childcare costs? Fertility rates are down 4%. At one point it becomes unsustainable (without immigration as stated).
https://globalnews.ca/news/4957286/a...aby-boom-over/

Just ask yourself if the policy is best for Alberta, not whether or not we should continue to punish those who made (what we deem) poor choices.

Right and I agree it's not a good idea to base this on the lowest common denominator (which is basically a good rule of thumb for policy-making). But let me be clear again in that I'm not against the idea, particularly for the lower income people and working poor.

Where it becomes more cloudy for me is at the more lower-middle class kind of thing. I get that there are costs to having kids, and yes having kids involves some sacrifice as a parent for a lot of things. But at what point is that just part of the deal, and at what point does the province need to step in and take care of that? Like if car seats or strollers are too expensive, should the province step in and buy those for expecting mothers to ease the burden?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The article posted above links the Alberta fertility rate to economic outlook which makes much more sense. People without jobs or hope for future employment don't tend to have babies. Further raising their taxes is not going to change this.

Except the increase in tax is to help with childcare costs?! Someone who is about to have kids, but gets taxed a small amount more isn't going to not have kids when they find out they would get back a much larger amount...quite the opposite.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You think that a tax increase of any sort would equate to ~800-1000 a month?

You think a subsidy of ~800-1000 a month (plus interest) doesn't lead to any tax increase?

[Lubicon]

Honest question for those who have kids in daycare/childcare. When you say you are spending $x dollars per day/month is that the up front cost? ie what you are cutting a cheque for? I'd be curious to see the actual cost once the tax deduction is taken into account. It's probably a simple calculation and could be estimated but I don't know the numbers and tax is not my business so I am not familiar. What I'm saying is how does the actual cost of what you are paying compare to the proposed models some of the parties are coming out with?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Except the increase in tax is to help with childcare costs?! Someone who is about to have kids, but gets taxed a small amount more isn't going to not have kids when they find out they would get back a much larger amount...quite the opposite.

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter how much they are getting back if they don't have a job, or hope to grow a business, etc. The data is clear that child care costs are NOT what is making the birth rate fall, it's the poor economic outlook.

Until we remove the barriers to economic growth the subsidy for daycare is irrelevant.

Lower the tax burden for job creators. Get a pipeline built. Stand up for Alberta's economic interests. Stop piling on debt/future taxes without reason.

Those are the things that will help families the most.