Calgary North Hill Under the Radar

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

I would agree with you guys about the social safety net...if it was more truthful!

I don't know anyone who has made terrible decisions based on the social safety net being there to support them. I do know of people who faced horrendous accidents and trauma in their lives though who were able to overcome their temporary situation because of the safety net being there to help them when they clearly needed help.

Its trite to suggest that everyone using the social programs is doing so because of poor decisions, or is trying to take advantage of the system. Sure, a very small percentage is...but you can't base your system on the lowest common denominator.

While very few actively make terrible decisions knowing that the government will cover their ass, to say that the social hammock does not contribute to terrible decisions would not be correct either.

Some people are naturally unlucky. However, most people choose their life path. I think most people are quite aware that they live in an interconnected society and that their actions have an effect on others in the society. I think many people just don't care, specifically, that they are entitled to live their life however they want, and that the government can take care of them because they're so special. Despite the fact that the government is just an agent dispensing our monies to them.

While its not right to govern with the LCD in mind... its sometimes necessary.

[Slava]

^^ See this is where the difference between the right and left is today. I am not about subsidizing peoples habits, but I also know that it is more cost effective to help people when they need it than to pay for more police officers and build more jails to hold them when they find their own means of subzidiaing their income!

I have a friend who was an innocent bystander and was shot. He ended up on AISH and many other social programs to get "back on his feet" (pun fully intended as he is now a quadraplegic, and would laugh with me!). Cases like that are isolated...but that is what the system should be based on.

When the economy is hot its easy to say we don't need EI....but when the jobless rate hits 10% again (and eventually it will), then these programs are critical so that people can feed their families and live.

[Thunderball]

^ I don't think we are that far apart. I think I'm just more adamant in my stance. Which is, simply, I only want to help people who:

A. Want to help themselves
B. Want to better society
C. Have suffered through no fault of their own

Aside from those people, I really have no great concern for the rest. I think people who make selfish and thoughtless life decisions do not deserve the resources that should be allocated to those three groups. People like your friend, hardworking family men/women down on their luck and with a desire to provide and single parents with limited options are where my social conscience lie.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

^ I don't think we are that far apart. I think I'm just more adamant in my stance. Which is, simply, I only want to help people who:

A. Want to help themselves
B. Want to better society
C. Have suffered through no fault of their own

Aside from those people, I really have no great concern for the rest. I think people who make selfish and thoughtless life decisions do not deserve the resources that should be allocated to those three groups. People like your friend, hardworking family men/women down on their luck and with a desire to provide and single parents with limited options are where my social conscience lie.

You and I agree...yet we come to a vastly different basis for the programs. You want the programs to exclude the "cheaters" or people who abuse the system as a main plank. (my words, not yours!). I prefer to see the programs be all encompassing and as inclusive as possible, and if it costs a little extra and we can afford it, then its fine with me.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

You and I agree...yet we come to a vastly different basis for the programs. You want the programs to exclude the "cheaters" or people who abuse the system as a main plank. (my words, not yours!). I prefer to see the programs be all encompassing and as inclusive as possible, and if it costs a little extra and we can afford it, then its fine with me.

I look at it that the cost to encompass the free riders is taking away from everyone else. That money is our money that has been earmarked for the truly needy only.

Say Social Programs A, B, and C cost an additional $800 million to encompass those to need to use it, and those who live to abuse it.... It governmental terms, that's not much... but for the ~2 million taxpayers in Alberta, its ~$400 going out of their pockets and into someone else's who shouldn't every year. Its a form of theft, and I'm quite sure that my $400/year would be better in my bank account, investments and/or education funds than in someone else's pocket. I'm quite sure that if there was an audit of total program abuse and its cost to Joe Taxpayer, it would greatly exceed $400 and that's not acceptable.

[Bobblehead]

True, but how do you "clean up" the system without additional government bureaucracy?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

You and I agree...yet we come to a vastly different basis for the programs. You want the programs to exclude the "cheaters" or people who abuse the system as a main plank. (my words, not yours!). I prefer to see the programs be all encompassing and as inclusive as possible, and if it costs a little extra and we can afford it, then its fine with me.

Yeah, say that about every state program and entitlement over the course of decades, add in the wonders of public administration and you get nickeled and dimed to death. We're in a province that typically spends twice as much as any other per person on government expenditures and yet there's still people and organizations lining up at the trough begging to be sprinkled with new cash. Oil is friken $100/bbl and has increased every year but yet the surplus shrinks every year. Yeah it's time for "change," but it's not a "change" that comes from a party that gives multiple bullet points on ignored areas of Alberta that should get immediate injections (Double that, triple this) of funds. They're answer when someone questions them on where it's going to come from is government inefficiencies in a number of broadly defined areas. If that were the opening sentance of a long document outlining where and how they would do it then that's an acceptable answer. Fact is they have no clue on how to streamline anything and even if they did suceed then we'd still have a province that spends money in out of control ways because they've already committed those savings to dubious new causes.

[flamey_mcflame]

I think I was misunderstood. My bone of contention is choice and the responsibilities that come with it. I will use childcare again for an example

A) If you choose to have a child, it is your financial and social responsibility to be able to support it. Why do I have to subsidize a provincial and federal childcare program if Person X chooses to have a child. I do not mind paying education dollars and health dollars for the child. It is to everyone's advantage that the next generation succeed. But childcare enters into the realm of lifestyle choice. If you want to have daycare for your child, then you should have to pay it out of your own pocket. If you can not afford it, then you should not be having children. If both parents want to continue working after child is born, it is your responsibility to pay for daycare.

I just think that all personal choices made by an individual,couple,etc. should have appropriate personal responsibilities. Here are other examples where this may not necessarily be true in our society.

Obesity is becoming an epidemic in our society. Rather than having a health care system that treats obesity, we should have made prevention and responsibility the primary goal. If you want to eat pizza,hamburgers and junk food to excess, you are entitled to. But our health dollars should not go to funding your bad dietary decisions. 40 percent of our tax dollars go to funding health care. Imagine how many dollars we could save if people actually treated their bodies the way the treat their car, tv, and jobs. The same applies to drugs, unsafe sexual practices, and on and on.

This country and province would be financially and mentally much healthier if we actually had the foresight to base our personal decisons on future outcomes. But instead we tax and spend in this fruitless mentality that money fixes all. Alberta spends more per capita on almost every major program, and our savings are a pittance compared to other oil rich regions.

[Cowboy89]

News from the campaign trail: A buddy of mine living in the Calgary MacKay riding was paid a visit at his doorstep a couple of nights ago from PC Candidate Teresa Woo-Paw's campaign. After quickly declaring that his was an 'undecided household' and did not want to discuss politics, he closed the door and thought that was that. Later that evening he went out to run some errands and noticed that he had a Teresa Woo-Paw sign on his front lawn, and so did many of his immediate neighbors. Needless to say he threw out the sign and eliminated the tories from his voting considerations. It appears in fact that one sign on private property lawns = 4 angry undecided votes as noone in his household has made a decision. Apparently one private property sign doesn't equal 10 commited votes as suggested in other threads.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

News from the campaign trail: A buddy of mine living in the Calgary MacKay riding was paid a visit at his doorstep a couple of nights ago from PC Candidate Teresa Woo-Paw's campaign. After quickly declaring that his was an 'undecided household' and did not want to discuss politics, he closed the door and thought that was that. Later that evening he went out to run some errands and noticed that he had a Teresa Woo-Paw sign on his front lawn, and so did many of his immediate neighbors. Needless to say he threw out the sign and eliminated the tories from his voting considerations. It appears in fact that one sign on private property lawns = 4 angry undecided votes as noone in his household has made a decision. Apparently one private property sign doesn't equal 10 commited votes as suggested in other threads.

I shouldn't be surprised.... it sounds very similar to "Here's your sign" Story # 2 that I posted yesterday.

http://janemorgan.blogspot.com/2008/...your-sign.html

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I shouldn't be surprised.... it sounds very similar to "Here's your sign" Story # 2 that I posted yesterday.

http://janemorgan.blogspot.com/2008/...your-sign.html

Good story. I wonder how many votes are lost due to annoying the property owner(s) compared to votes won due to people looking at the sign.

I can't say I'm surprised to see this happening. The first percieved contested election since 1993 and candidates are pulling every greasy trick in the book for that brass ring.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Good story. I wonder how many votes are lost due to annoying the property owner(s) compared to votes won due to people looking at the sign.

I can't say I'm surprised to see this happening. The first percieved contested election since 1993 and candidates are pulling every greasy trick in the book for that brass ring.

Totally. I think the PCs entered this election with a lot of arrogance, and are starting to realize that a much-larger-than-anticipated percentage of Albertans are not happy with the PC government, and Stelmach making idle promises and merely surviving the debate may not be good enough.

I'm sure the dirty tricks will continue as the meal ticket dangles in jeopardy.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Good story.

Thanks. CBC thought so too, they interviewed me at the location where my signs went missing. Interestingly enough; the larger one we put up to replace them had been knocked down.

I can't say I'm surprised to see this happening. The first percieved contested election since 1993 and candidates are pulling every greasy trick in the book for that brass ring.

CTV called and gave me a heads up; tonight they will be reporting on some very interesting recent poll numbers....

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Thanks. CBC thought so too, they interviewed me at the location where my signs went missing. Interestingly enough; the larger one we put up to replace them had been knocked down.



CTV called and gave me a heads up; tonight they will be reporting on some very interesting recent poll numbers....

I would be very interested to hear those poll numbers... somehow I have the feeling its a two horse race, with a third horse pulling in fast...

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I would be very interested to hear those poll numbers... somehow I have the feeling its a two horse race, with a third horse pulling in fast...

I'd love to share..... but will be aired in less than hour..... Not going to steal their thunder.

I have a 5PM meeting, so I will have to catch a later broadcast.

[Thunderball]

that means I'll have to actually watch the 5pm news instead of go the gym... feel free to PM me what they told you...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Can someone post the news results?

[Azure]

PM me too....if someone isn't going to post it here.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

News from the campaign trail: A buddy of mine living in the Calgary MacKay riding was paid a visit at his doorstep a couple of nights ago from PC Candidate Teresa Woo-Paw's campaign. After quickly declaring that his was an 'undecided household' and did not want to discuss politics, he closed the door and thought that was that. Later that evening he went out to run some errands and noticed that he had a Teresa Woo-Paw sign on his front lawn, and so did many of his immediate neighbors. Needless to say he threw out the sign and eliminated the tories from his voting considerations. It appears in fact that one sign on private property lawns = 4 angry undecided votes as noone in his household has made a decision. Apparently one private property sign doesn't equal 10 commited votes as suggested in other threads.

Wow

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Can someone post the news results?

Poll shows shift in political support

calgary.ctv.ca

A new poll shows it is shaping up to be a wild election night in Calgary.

In Calgary, support for the Conservatives stands at 44 per cent among decided voters. The Tories took 52 per cent of the vote in the city in 2004.
Liberal support is at 29 per cent, almost exactly where it was in 2004.
Wildrose Alliance support has jumped to 13 per cent compared to 7 per cent for the Alberta Alliance in 2004.
The Green Party has jumped to 10 per cent compared to 6 per cent in 2004.
The NDP is down to 3 per cent.
This poll was taken February 27 and 28.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/yqsfr6