It is short sighted pandering to buy people's votes. It makes zero sense from a provincial fiscal perspective or a quality of life perspective.
It's almost more painful because this policy will likely be effective in gaining votes from a certain demographic, where short-term cash in the pocket is an easy thing to get behind (I mean honestly, who would argue against free money?) because they have no idea of the real cost of that $300 that went towards their new dirtbike.
Being short sighted and giving out Ralph Bucks is one thing when you have a $9B surplus, but promising to give out money on any energy surplus is a whole new ballgame.
Really irks me when politicians make bad policies like this where you know all they're trying to do is buy votes with cash promises they won't be able to keep, but they promise anyways since it'll help them win a seat or two, and will never have to follow through with it since they likely won't be forming the government anyways.
Well it is a bit different. Ralph actually cut cheques prior to an election. The WRP plan is at least 3 years down the road and only if there are surpluses.
It doesn't matter what it was spent on, it goes back into the economy. And really this is what "fair share" should have been about; Albertans getting a piece of the surplus revenue as it is always because of resource revenue being higher than expected.
LOL, three years from now, which coincidentally will be right before an election? Its great bang for your buck for the Wildrose. They can try to buy votes now with money that gets paid just in time to buy votes for the second time around!
It does matter what the money is spent on actually. I can't take my $300 (cheap....at least Ralph gave us $400!) and improve healthcare, education or build a road. That kind of spending power is only for the province.
Maybe the Wildrose will have everything fixed by then and we won't need the money though?
The Following User Says Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
I just find it pedantic that there is some hidden value in a collective spending versus individual. You can take your $300 and invest it in your childs school directly. You could spend it on a health care supplement or alternative treatment. You could use it to offset school fees, textbooks or tutoring expenses. The idea being that an individual can best decide exactly where spurplus money is best spent to help themselves.
But yet, the argument that people are too dumb to spend this money where it would impact them the most and the government could better spend it is pervasive in left wing thinking. That people are stupid and would buy beer and popcorn instead of helping their children or families directly.
Again, this is more about long term holistic thinking vs. short term individual gain. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a low income families or people in need get a nice check to help pay for books or relieve some of the stress of living. But when you look at the whole picture, the 300 dollar one time shot in the arm has a far lesser impact on society as a whole than an additional investment in Public transit, improving post secondary education or improving health care. I think most people feel there is still a dramatic infrastructure and services deficit that is still lingering from Ralph's time as premier.
I remember Ralph Bucks when they came in. I was an undergrad living on my own and value of the Ralph bucks was so insignificant that I hated the idea. I ended up putting it towards replacing a broken down monitor I was using for school. It's ten years later and I no longer have the computer or monitor. Ralph bucks wasn't enough to make a real impact in the costs of tuition or books at the time. I know many of my friends at university thought it was an awful idea and it still is today.
It's what a decade or so later and I'd rather have those original Ralph Bucks reinvested in to Public Transit or Health care than the monitor that I used for a year and a half.
I'm starting to think Smith has forgotten the first rule of holes. "The PC government has dug this province into a deeper hole than ever before. The WRP will get us out of this hole, with more digging!"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Let's see, the choices are:
NDP - I'm not a communist
Alberta Party -
Liberals - Nah, dont hate rich people.
PC's - Party needs an enema
WR - You're losing me ..... no more stupid vote buying policies please.
What does a fiscal Conservative do?
Maybe time to give the Wild Boar Party a second look.
LOL, three years from now, which coincidentally will be right before an election? Its great bang for your buck for the Wildrose. They can try to buy votes now with money that gets paid just in time to buy votes for the second time around!
It does matter what the money is spent on actually. I can't take my $300 (cheap....at least Ralph gave us $400!) and improve healthcare, education or build a road. That kind of spending power is only for the province.
Maybe the Wildrose will have everything fixed by then and we won't need the money though?
Bleah, whatever.
I don't expect you to agree with everything... no correction; anything the Wildrose does.
You wanted policy. It doesn't matter how much policy they put out, it will never appeal to you.
You wanted new ideas. It doesn't matter what ideas they come out with, it won't appeal to you.
As I've said before no "one" party will match every belief a person may have; the general public try to find one that closes matches them.
You on the other hand have decided who "not" to support and you will defend that to the bitter end.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to First Lady For This Useful Post:
LOL, three years from now, which coincidentally will be right before an election? Its great bang for your buck for the Wildrose. They can try to buy votes now with money that gets paid just in time to buy votes for the second time around!
It does matter what the money is spent on actually. I can't take my $300 (cheap....at least Ralph gave us $400!) and improve healthcare, education or build a road. That kind of spending power is only for the province.
Maybe the Wildrose will have everything fixed by then and we won't need the money though?
A regression back to the Klien era indeed. It must be frustrating for you to watch the PCs crumble just as they essentially adopted a platform that looks and smells like Alberta Liberal policies of yesteryear. It suggests that for better or for worse it wasn't just the Liberal name that voters were rejecting back then.
I'm one of those people who are totally undecided (it will be my first time voting in almost a decade actually) so I'm pretty open to what each party has to say....but I have to admit, this and the whole cutting of public infrastructure funds from before is not doing WR any favors....deal-breakers most likely.
A regression back to the Klien era indeed. It must be frustrating for you to watch the PCs crumble just as they essentially adopted a platform that looks and smells like Alberta Liberal policies of yesteryear. It suggests that for better or for worse it wasn't just the Liberal name that voters were rejecting back then.
With your financial acumen and knowledge you aren't actually in favour of this are you?
As for me, I don't have a vested interest in the PC campaign, so it is what it is.
With your financial acumen and knowledge you aren't actually in favour of this are you?
As for me, I don't have a vested interest in the PC campaign, so it is what it is.
Much like you I would prefer that any and all surpluses go to the Heritage Fund as opposed to just shipped out piecemeal in nominal amounts to people.
My comment was more a political commentary that the popularity of the Wildrose might actually put to bed the notion that Albertan's are all really 'centerists' and that all the Alberta Liberals needed to do was change their name to win popularity.
Much like you I would prefer that any and all surpluses go to the Heritage Fund as opposed to just shipped out piecemeal in nominal amounts to people.
My comment was more a political commentary that the popularity of the Wildrose might actually put to bed the notion that Albertan's are all really 'centerists' and that all the Alberta Liberals needed to do was change their name to win popularity.
Or once the issues are out on the table Albertans will be seen as more progressive and centrist than they were previously. Its not exactly written in stone at this point with the election three weeks away.
I didn't even hear about 'Danielle's Dividends' and I was already wondering how the WRP were going to keep all their plans while still cutting or maintaining taxes.
Read an article (op-ed I'm sure) in the Herald that did a little math and stated that for the WRP to keep their financial plans they would need oil to rise over 200 dollars a barrel! Or find some other increases in income. They would need surpluses of 18 B a year!
It's nice to say your going to do all these (more funding to education, fixing health care, better infrastructure) things and not raise taxes (and add to the heritage fund, and give out dividends) but it's just not possible.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
Just heard a new attack ad on qr77. It went by quick but basically said that the WR was going to get rid of thousands of nurses and doctors and punish the elderly.
They missed the part about slapping children and kicking puppies.
Read an article (op-ed I'm sure) in the Herald that did a little math and stated that for the WRP to keep their financial plans they would need oil to rise over 200 dollars a barrel! Or find some other increases in income. They would need surpluses of 18 B a year!
That was posted here the other day, the WR's numbers are a little too optimistic but if I remember correctly the author of the article never accounted for any revenue being generated by the fund itself.
I think the WRP lost my vote with that stupid dividend thing. Oh well.
Ugh this might be a showstopper for me as well...they had me intrigued for awhile.
Note to the WR: How about we worry about getting our fiscal house in order, working on the infrastructure defect and restoring payments into the Heritage fund first. Once we have those things well in hand, then maybe start thinking about dividends.
This thread and the media seem to be focused on the PC and Wildrose perspective exclusively. There seems to be crickets chirping about the Liberal's policies. I was wondering what poster thought of their plan to incerase taxes on people who make over $100,000/year.
My thoughts:
Is someone making $100,000/year really 'rich' and deserving of punitive taxation in a province where an average single family home costs 4 times that amount? Is $100,000 / year the right bar to set that at (And also would this be linked to inflation?)
Raj Sherman has tried to link the higher income taxes to eliminating tuition fees by 2025. Is making the marginal cost of a post secondary education zero really good public policy? I can see more people taking advantage of going to school but not being really serious about their studies if it costs them nothing in tuition.
Is this really just a ploy to try and hold onto their seats in ridings that have major universities in them, knowing that ultimately they won't win the election and have to actually answer to or implement the policies?
That was posted here the other day, the WR's numbers are a little too optimistic but if I remember correctly the author of the article never accounted for any revenue being generated by the fund itself.
Fair enough, but the revenue from the fund is going to be a drop in the bucket until the fund gets to MUCH MUCH higher levels. Certainly nothing that's going to make a difference in the first 5-10 years even if you can manage to grow it.
And yeah, sorry if I hit the party late. I've been staying out of this thread on purpose, lol.
) and improve healthcare, education or build a road. That kind of spending power is only for the province.
