Alberta PC's way out front

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So what if someone isn't able to work? Let's say they were born with a disability preventing them from working in a consistent job, lets say FASD, autism, schizophrenia or there was something that happened in their life that was of no fault of their own, meningitis for instance resulting in a cognitive impairment.

The question is where do you draw the line. We seemed to draw the line now that if foster parents don't want to work, they can claim maternity/paternity EI.

Last time when my kid was born, the nurse came to our house which to me was not absolutely necessary because our baby was healthy. Then the nurse wanted to come again on the weekend too, we ask why, she said she got pay extra if she worked on a weekend. Such is how most government services got run nowadays.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

There is one party with a platform you might love in this regard. The plan is that if the person works for a decade in Alberta then their loans are forgiven.

I'm not talking about forgiving their loans. I'm talking about giving them extremely favorable rates IF they stay in Alberta. At some point they need to pay it back.

If it takes 30 years, so be it.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

The question is where do you draw the line. We seemed to draw the line now that if foster parents don't want to work, they can claim maternity/paternity EI.

Last time when my kid was born, the nurse came to our house which to me was not absolutely necessary because our baby was healthy. Then the nurse wanted to come again on the weekend too, we ask why, she said she got pay extra if she worked on a weekend. Such is how most government services got run nowadays.

I have no idea what your first paragraph was about at all. I don't know the foster care system and I highly doubt you have much insight as to the workings of foster care. That being said because it is difficult to draw the line, you prefer there to be no line at all? People be damned if they don't contribute, truth be told if you are voting for a political party that fit your views, I would be looking for a different party.

Oh I can answer that last one! So home visits by a nurse are done in order to ensure a couple of things, the first being the wellbeing of the infant, making sure that the baby is healthy, feeding properly, a whole swack of check in the boxes, and to answer any questions that the parents of the newborn may have about the baby.

The second reason is to check on the well-being of the mother because of post-partum depression.

Her setting up her schedule in order to go on a weekend seems odd but often times the nurse would do something like that in order to be able to offer advice to the mother and the father who may not be available any other time. The cost of those programs where the health region will be able to do preventative teaching is much more cost effective rather than waiting until something goes wrong and then trying to fix the damage that had already been done.

Question: What do you think about an increase in AISH?

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I have no idea what your first paragraph was about at all. I don't know the foster care system and I highly doubt you have much insight as to the workings of foster care. That being said because it is difficult to draw the line, you prefer there to be no line at all? People be damned if they don't contribute, truth be told if you are voting for a political party that fit your views, I would be looking for a different party.

Question: What do you think about an increase in AISH?

Sorry, I meant adopting parents getting EI, not foster parents. I don't know much about the AISH but my question remains the same, where do you draw the line? Is $1000 a month, $2000 or $3000 a month enough for the severely handicapped to live on?

The simple question for this particular increase is what prompted for the increase? To me it seemed a little willy nilly from the Redford government or perhaps a vote buying tactic. And if it is not a willy nilly increase, then why not increase other welfare payments as well?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Look at the difference in industry though, people aren't leaving the Maritime provinces because of the tax rates, they are leaving because of the unemployment and lack of industry, which has more to do with a lack of natural resources now the the fisheries have bottomed out rather than anything to do with the tax rates.

This assumption is patently false.

Please explain why Saskatchewan, with comparable natural resources to Alberta, languished with low economic growth and population drain for so many decades, and suddenly with a revised tax regime has done a 180 in regards to economic development?

Government overspending and the resultant tax structure has very much a huge part in the languishing of Canada's poorest economies; Quebec, Martimes, and soon to be Ontario.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Look at the difference in industry though, people aren't leaving the Maritime provinces because of the tax rates, they are leaving because of the unemployment and lack of industry, which has more to do with a lack of natural resources now the the fisheries have bottomed out rather than anything to do with the tax rates.

Their tax rate caused business to leave. Why would you set up a business in the Maritime where you have to pay higher sales tax, corporate tax, payroll tax, capital tax instead of Alberta? Once your party starts giving out handout, they can't stop it or risk losing votes. So they go into deficit spending which they can never get out of. Sooner or later, the Maritime will become if they are not already another Greece.

At least the ON government has the wisdom to think austerity measure when they still have the chance. The Maritime is a done deal, nothing including the their rich offshore O&G can save them now.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

This assumption is patently false.

Please explain why Saskatchewan, with comparable natural resources to Alberta, languished with low economic growth and population drain for so many decades, and suddenly with a revised tax regime has done a 180 in regards to economic development?

Comparable natural resources?




Now I'm not an expert but those look somewhat different to me.

Government overspending and the resultant tax structure has very much a huge part in the languishing of Canada's poorest economies; Quebec, Martimes, and soon to be Ontario.

Not being blessed with the same high valued natural resources has done that, not government overspending. I don't think that the government should spend money freely but the money they do spend should be investing in the people and infrastructure of the province. These are areas where you see a return on your investment in the long run.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That is only a certain percentage of our supporters/members/MLA's. For those that it applies to, it's more about what they migrated "to" than "from".
Moving to a Party that more accurately reflects their principles is exactly why people will vote for the Wildrose.

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Are you suggesting that for a new party to be credible it needs to be made entirely by people who have never indicated past support for an existing party?

You can't honestly believe this, right? We all know the supporters and main drivers of the Wildrose came from one party. I would doubt that there are a significant number of former NDP, Liberal, Green or other party supporters in your ranks.

Essentially its a name change and some minor tinkering to the PC party. Fiscally the last alternative "budget" shows that; there are minor cost savings and thats about it. We're not talking about a party that has redefined anything or come out with new ideas for anything here; its old news that is dressed up as "change".

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

We're not talking about a party that has redefined anything or come out with new ideas for anything here; its old news that is dressed up as "change".

Conservative AKA WRA supporters aren't a bunch that would easily be enamored by the notion of "change". Those are Lib and NDP's territories. I for one would just like things to stay the same, no tax increase, no sales tax, no increase to welfare payments etc.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Conservative AKA WRA supporters aren't a bunch that would easily be enamored by the notion of "change". Those are Lib and NDP's territories. I for one would just like things to stay the same, no tax increase, no sales tax, no increase to welfare payments etc.

If you want things to stay the same that's great. Unfortunately that means putting your head in the sand while the world changes around you though.

[GP_Matt]

I will admit to having held a PC membership in the past. Historically in much of Alberta if you wanted your vote to count the only way to do that was to buy a PC membership and vote in their nomination contests.

As for my post that you quoted, I am not suggesting that the majority of the WAP supporters have migrated from the NDP, I am just questioning why it is an issue. I can't imagine any new party forming that didn't draw its supporters from from existing parties and in Alberta we have had only one party dominate for the last 40 years. I would find it odd if a party gained popularity without attracting members from the PC's and don't see the problem with that.
As for the differences between the WRA and the PC's I think they are quite clear although I am not sure if I can post anything to convince someone to change their vote from Liberal to Wildrose.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

You can't honestly believe this, right? We all know the supporters and main drivers of the Wildrose came from one party. I would doubt that there are a significant number of former NDP, Liberal, Green or other party supporters in your ranks.

You'd be correct. There are a great deal of people involved who have never been active in politics at all.

Essentially its a name change and some minor tinkering to the PC party. Fiscally the last alternative "budget" shows that; there are minor cost savings and thats about it. We're not talking about a party that has redefined anything or come out with new ideas for anything here; its old news that is dressed up as "change".

I think the important take away from the WRP budget is that it's balanced and doesn't cut our sustainability fund in half.

I don't recall you being a PC supporter, where is your party's budget?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Comparable natural resources?




Now I'm not an expert but those look somewhat different to me.


Not being blessed with the same high valued natural resources has done that, not government overspending. I don't think that the government should spend money freely but the money they do spend should be investing in the people and infrastructure of the province. These are areas where you see a return on your investment in the long run.

Sorry MMR but showing me a map where industry has invested money and discovered natural resources doesn't explain why SSK had virtually no oil and gas development until the Saskatchewan Party came into power.

If anything, those maps prove the point entirely... SSK's map was blank and the oil and gas reserves suddenly stopped at the border...??

If you see a return on investment only on people and infrastructure, then why not just tax everyone 100% and put all the money there?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Conservative AKA WRA supporters aren't a bunch that would easily be enamored by the notion of "change". Those are Lib and NDP's territories. I for one would just like things to stay the same, no tax increase, no sales tax, no increase to welfare payments etc.

Just because something is different does not make it worse you know. In fact in many ways it may be better and to just reject anything that is different is a really quick way to become irrelevant in the world.

It is important to be a progressive thinker and look 5, 10, 50 years down the road, investing money into a healthy, well education population is never a bad investment as long as it is done in an efficient manner.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I will admit to having held a PC membership in the past. Historically in much of Alberta if you wanted your vote to count the only way to do that was to buy a PC membership and vote in their nomination contests.

As for my post that you quoted, I am not suggesting that the majority of the WAP supporters have migrated from the NDP, I am just questioning why it is an issue. I can't imagine any new party forming that didn't draw its supporters from from existing parties and in Alberta we have had only one party dominate for the last 40 years. I would find it odd if a party gained popularity without attracting members from the PC's and don't see the problem with that.
As for the differences between the WRA and the PC's I think they are quite clear although I am not sure if I can post anything to convince someone to change their vote from Liberal to Wildrose.

Sure, but when virtually all of the supporters from the new party are from one main old party you have to see why the topic would come up?

Originally Posted by First Lady

You'd be correct. There are a great deal of people involved who have never been active in politics at all.



I think the important take away from the WRP budget is that it's balanced and doesn't cut our sustainability fund in half.

I don't recall you being a PC supporter, where is your party's budget?

I'm a UFA. I don't have a candidate to vote for at all this time around actually. I just take a look at whats been presented and go from there. The fact is, the WRA didn't release a budget at all. You might call it that, but who knows? We are lead to believe that your plan is balanced and you have ways to pay for it, but truthfully this wasn't released that I've seen. I read the full 14 page document you linked earlier and thats not a budget. Thats a few high points strung together to go along with a press release. Basically voters are left to wonder whether the budget would actually be balanced, or what it would even look like. We could take the word of a group of former conservatives I suppose, but I'm not particularly inclined to do that.

I just refer to the PC budget because its basically fine; I do have some misgivings about how they intend to fund some of their goals and think that the party that has actually addressed these issues is the Liberal party. The WRA tries to make the deficit an issue, but seriously its a non-issue. The deficit is covered. Do they have to spend the "rainy day fund" to do that, yes. The fact is though, WE JUST HAD A RAINY DAY! Not sure why that is so hard for Wildrose supporters to grasp, but my guess is that they don't want to admit that in a desperate run for power.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

The WRA tries to make the deficit an issue, but seriously its a non-issue. The deficit is covered. Do they have to spend the "rainy day fund" to do that, yes. The fact is though, WE JUST HAD A RAINY DAY!

That's no ####### excuse to run deficits. The only rainy day that happened was Redford's bribes, I mean promises of free money, I mean funding increases to get idiots to vote for her.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Sorry MMR but showing me a map where industry has invested money and discovered natural resources doesn't explain why SSK had virtually no oil and gas development until the Saskatchewan Party came into power.

If anything, those maps prove the point entirely... SSK's map was blank and the oil and gas reserves suddenly stopped at the border...??

If you see a return on investment only on people and infrastructure, then why not just tax everyone 100% and put all the money there?

It could be that the price of natural gas is worth next to nothing right now, so anyone that would do any exploration in the area is only throwing their money away, particularly because most of the natural gas in Saskatchewan is dry.

I guess it is possible that there are vast Saskatchewan Oil Sands which just haven't been discovered yet but it also could be that the Athabasca Oil Sands don't stretch to Saskatchewan.

I don't know what your last little jab was about, but you do see a positive return on investing money into a healthy population... and I am not in favour of a totalitarian communist regime, I just think that the government spending money in areas where there is a positive return on the investment is good,

Snide comments aside, do you think that a healthy population is more efficient than an unhealthy population?

[MarchHare]

Their tax rate caused business to leave. Why would you set up a business in the Maritime where you have to pay higher sales tax, corporate tax, payroll tax, capital tax instead of Alberta? Once your party starts giving out handout, they can't stop it or risk losing votes. So they go into deficit spending which they can never get out of. Sooner or later, the Maritime will become if they are not already another Greece.

Yeah...no.

In the late 80s and early-mid 90s, New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna enacted very favourable tax rates and other incentives for businesses willing to relocate to the province. He even setup a toll-free number directly to the premier's office specifically for businesses to find out about all the perks his government was offering if they brought jobs to the province. At the same time, he slashed government spending, eliminated the deficit, and balanced the budget. NB became one of the first provinces in the country to be in the black.

Yet this did not stop the steady flow of citizens leaving the province, and while unemployment rates improved, they never approached Alberta levels. Why do you suppose that is? It has nothing to do with running deficits or having business-unfriendly tax regimes.

[GP_Matt]

Going back to 1970 the province has had 6 years where the royalty take was higher than this year. (I know inflation might add a couple of years to that list but not many) My concern is that I don't think it is raining very hard, gas prices are down but oil is high. It seems like things were great for a few years and we are basing everything on that.

What really got me looking for a new party was the 2008/2009 budget that showed a deficit when royalties were still as high as ever and a full billion dollars more than the previous year.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

That's no ####### excuse to run deficits. The only rainy day that happened was Redford's bribes, I mean promises of free money, I mean funding increases to get idiots to vote for her.

Really 2008-2009 were a continuation of the few years prior?