Alberta PC's way out front

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

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?

That doesn't make any sense, the price of Natural Gas has been the same in Alberta as Saskatchewan, yet there was no exploration done in Saskatchewan until recently. Until then the discovered oil and gas deposits stopped right at the border. It seems strange that God decided the sedimentary basin deposits would suddenly stop at an arbitrary line drawn by our governments, doesnt it? Saskatchewan Bakken suddenly became one of the hottest plays in North America in the past decade, but it's ALWAYS been there. Something changed to make it profitable and desirable....Brad Wall and his governments royalty/tax incentives.

We have another sparkling example in Alberta when Special Eddy decided he was going to raise royalties a few years ago. Investment dollars fled out of Alberta faster than the teachers union members voting in Red Redford. Jobs were lost, provincial revenues fell, and all because of a stupid government decision. Of course they had to reverse their policy soon after lest our entire economy totally crash.

I don't equate government spending to a healthy population so your point is moot.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

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

Really, you quoted me and replied to something else?

Please justify running a deficit caused by spending increases just because there's a 'rainy day fund'. I can't decide if it's laziness, incompetence, or outright malfeasance.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Really, you quoted me and replied to something else?

Please justify running a deficit caused by spending increases just because there's a 'rainy day fund'. I can't decide if it's laziness, incompetence, or outright malfeasance.

No, that was directly to you. You said that there was no rainy day, and pretty clearly in my eyes 2008-2009 was just such an event.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It seems strange that God decided the sedimentary basin deposits would suddenly stop at an arbitrary line drawn by our governments, doesnt it?

It isn't arbitrary, it is the best approximation available at the time of a longitudinal line 110 degrees west of the Prime Meridian.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, that was directly to you. You said that there was no rainy day, and pretty clearly in my eyes 2008-2009 was just such an event.

Was Alison Redford premier in 2008-2009? I am discussing the budget deficit under her tenure. There is no excuse for running a deficit right now. There was no rainy day in 2011 or 2012. But hey, keep dodging the issue.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Was Alison Redford premier in 2008-2009? I am discussing the budget deficit under her tenure. There is no excuse for running a deficit right now. There was no rainy day in 2011 or 2012. But hey, keep dodging the issue.

Who's dodging anything?

I just don't think that the deficit is a big deal at all. Its $800M on a $40B total budget. Projections are to have the entire deficit and debt wiped out within a few years. People always want government to spend more like a prudent business; corporations run deficits all the time and the fact is that there are times when its a good business decision!

[Jacks]

I find it interesting that self described Liberals are fairly supportive of this PC government, that speaks volumes.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just don't think that the deficit is a big deal at all. Its $800M on a $40B total budget. Projections are to have the entire deficit and debt wiped out within a few years.

How do you think we can wipe out the deficit when gas is less than a Big Mac a GJ? Counting on oil sand is fool's gold, if oil drops below the current $100 we are hoofed. Then will come the sales tax and other tax increases.

The Redford budget is a SHAME, that's why she dares not to make no sales tax promise. Instead saying something like a tax review which leaves the door to sales tax and tax increase open. The money that sweet Allison is spending left, right and centre must come from somewhere. And no, she wouldn't take it out from the cushy MP salary and benefits. So it must come from me and you. How stupid to you think we are?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who's dodging anything?

I just don't think that the deficit is a big deal at all. Its $800M on a $40B total budget. Projections are to have the entire deficit and debt wiped out within a few years. People always want government to spend more like a prudent business; corporations run deficits all the time and the fact is that there are times when its a good business decision!

That's right...If you've got it, SPEND IT! No reason to save anything for the future. No need to consider if we have a REAL rainy day. No need to ensure we get fair return for our money.

Stupid Norwegians; when will they learn!!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I find it interesting that self described Liberals are fairly supportive of this PC government, that speaks volumes.

If you're referring to me, then let me correct you quickly here. It would appear that you're confusing my criticism of the Wildrose for support of the Tories and that isn't really accurate.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That's right...If you've got it, SPEND IT! No reason to save anything for the future. No need to consider if we have a REAL rainy day. No need to ensure we get fair return for our money.

Stupid Norwegians; when will they learn!!

Good news for you! The Liberals and NDP have both used Norway as an example, so it should be easy to find a home. Can you tell me what the Wildrose will be doing to boost the fund and by how much? When is it appropriate to spend from that fund? In my opinion the worst financial crisis since the great depression might make sense, but perhaps you have something else in mind.

[MarchHare]

Stupid Norwegians; when will they learn!!

Are you proposing that Alberta should adopt Norway's level of taxation and public spending while investing the bulk of our resource revenue instead of spending it for day-to-day government operations? If so, your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I don't think you'll get much support for that level of taxation amongst Alberta voters, though.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who's dodging anything?

I just don't think that the deficit is a big deal at all. Its $800M on a $40B total budget.

Your opinion does not change the math. The government spends more than it takes in, when the situation can be avoided.

Projections are to have the entire deficit and debt wiped out within a few years.

The projections say whatever they want them to say. That's no excuse for spending the money now before it's collected.

People always want government to spend more like a prudent business; corporations run deficits all the time and the fact is that there are times when its a good business decision!

Irrelevant, and ignorant. Corporations that run deficits all the time go out of business. Governments are not businesses and run mostly on taxes and related revenues.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Your opinion does not change the math. The government spends more than it takes in, when the situation can be avoided.

The projections say whatever they want them to say. That's no excuse for spending the money now before it's collected.

Irrelevant, and ignorant. Corporations that run deficits all the time go out of business. Governments are not businesses and run mostly on taxes and related revenues.

Clearly we just have to agree to disagree. You won't have the government spending more than they take in under any circumstances and I think that there are situations that warrant this. No big deal; thats why we have elections and democracy.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you're referring to me, then let me correct you quickly here. It would appear that you're confusing my criticism of the Wildrose for support of the Tories and that isn't really accurate.

Not just you, none of the centre-left folks on here seem to have any serious criticism of Redford.

Example:

Originally Posted by Slava

I just refer to the PC budget because its basically fine;

Granted that right after that you said you prefer the Liberals but you don't seem to mind the PC's. Not that there is anything bad about that but it shows how this government's direction can be perceived, they certainly are nowhere near 'right wing', they barely pass as Conservative.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are you proposing that Alberta should adopt Norway's level of taxation and public spending while investing the bulk of our resource revenue instead of spending it for day-to-day government operations? If so, your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I don't think you'll get much support for that level of taxation amongst Alberta voters, though.

Would be much smarter than pretending we are hurting for Revenue all while spending like drunken sailors.

The entire point is that the PC party spend like the NDP while crying wolf about low revenues and needing to fix 'infrastructure deficit'/underpaid public service etc. etc.

If people really wanted this level of service, we should be seeing the tax bill. I strongly agree with you that people wouldn't want that level of taxation, and would agree to some cuts to the nutso spending.

Bribing us with resource revenue should be illegal.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

If you're referring to me, then let me correct you quickly here. It would appear that you're confusing my criticism of the Wildrose for support of the Tories and that isn't really accurate.



Good news for you! The Liberals and NDP have both used Norway as an example, so it should be easy to find a home. Can you tell me what the Wildrose will be doing to boost the fund and by how much? When is it appropriate to spend from that fund? In my opinion the worst financial crisis since the great depression might make sense, but perhaps you have something else in mind.

It would be appropriate to withdraw from the Sustainability fund when provincial revenue growth drops below the rate of inflation and population growth. This is what the Wildrose proposes to follow. This has happened once in the past 5 years. Yet, the PC's have continually raided this piggy bank along with the interest from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. The Wildrose Party would do neither.

[GP_Matt]

I like the idea of using population plus inflation growth as a benchmark. I don't think you have to hold to it no matter what but if you are going to spend beyond this benchmark You had better have a good reason and a plan for when it will stop.

[Slava]

The problem with that benchmark is twofold though. First, it implies that the system is both totally efficient and properly funded today. It isn't. That doesn't necessarily mean that we need to spend more money. But before we can have that discussion we must have the system setup properly in the first place. Unfortunately that kind of discussion can't be had with an axe hanging over people's heads.

The other major problem is that some of whats needed is infrastructure. You can't expect to have cash on hand to "just build a hospital" or "get a highway twinned" or whatever. If you did have the cash and spent it all on a huge project I would say that is nowhere near fiscally prudent. You're going to use the piece for decades, so why not finance it? (AKA borrow the money or go into debt....terrifying I know!)

Point is that the simplistic "spend what you have and no more" is not appropriate. It doesn't make sense in your house and doesn't make sense for our government. That doesn't mean that you have to make it rain.

[GP_Matt]

I agree with you that debt can be a great thing. Where we disagree is in our trust of the government to handle it over the long term. I feel that without pressure to stay out of debt the government will increasingly spend more money in the attempt to placate voters.
On a side note, the government has found a clever way to pay for capital expenditures over the life of the equipment in the P3 model.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I agree with you that debt can be a great thing. Where we disagree is in our trust of the government to handle it over the long term. I feel that without pressure to stay out of debt the government will increasingly spend more money in the attempt to placate voters.
On a side note, the government has found a clever way to pay for capital expenditures over the life of the equipment in the P3 model.

P3 is just a fancy way to say "borrowed money". Call it what you like, its the same thing. Has the Wildrose come out in favour of these?(I really don't know) That would make my day!