Alberta Politics Thread - Page 152 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Tinordi · 08-25-2016, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

When it comes to politics Tinordi will say everything possible to justify a larger, more insulated bureaucracy.

Reality be damned.

Oh god, just lame.

This type of argumentation is the worst.

killer_carlson · 08-25-2016, 09:49 AM

sorry Tinordi, but there is no point in debating with you. The result is always the same no matter how the actual economic climate is.

Resolute 14 · 08-25-2016, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

As far as the NDP goes, it actually scares me to think what they might do when times are good. If they're spending like drunken sailors today, can you imagine what they would be doing at $100 oil and $5-$6 gas?

And that's why I laugh at suggestions of a PST.

This government won't use a PST to cut the deficit. If it generates $2 billion in revenue, they will just see it as an excuse to increase spending by twice that amount.

GaiJin · 08-25-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But one of the growing pains of voting out a government that's been in power for generations is that the new government will need to find its feet. If they can't put forward a progressive, effective new vision for policy in this province then they'll deserve the boot, there is no doubt. But don't think that a return to the voodoo economics of WRP or the next flavour of right-wing governments and its whole bankruptcy in new policy ideas to fix the Alberta economy will bring any more success to the table.

You don't think there has to be any cuts? Finding their feet means what, nice generalities. C'mon tell us what the NDP needs to do . Say cut spending, I know you can.

RubberDuck · 08-25-2016, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Reality be damned.

Should be the NDP motto.

Robbob · 08-25-2016, 09:59 AM

There plan seems to be akin to a person hoping a lottery ticket fixes all their problems.

CaptainCrunch · 08-25-2016, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbob

There plan seems to be akin to a person hoping a lottery ticket fixes all their problems.

No their plan is to go to the bank and take out a massive loan to buy lottery tickets and then hope they win so they can pay their operations costs.

Tron_fdc · 08-25-2016, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

No their plan is to go to the bank and take out a massive loan to buy lottery tickets and then hope they win so they can pay their operations costs.

Yeah, a massive loan their kids are going to have to pay back.

CaptainCrunch · 08-25-2016, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Yeah, a massive loan their kids are going to have to pay back.

Yeah, and Quebec is the surly punk from down the street that insists on sleeping on the couch for free, and when you ask him for help he acts all self entitled and tells you to screw off. Meanwhile BC is that Hippy next store, who tells you that you can't use your sidewalk to walk to the pool down the street because the sidewalk belongs to the squirrels and mother nature man.

OMG!WTF! · 08-25-2016, 10:26 AM

I always thought of BC as the cranky senior citizen yelling about getting the hell off its lawn. And also a thrower of the occasional sherry bottle.

CaptainCrunch · 08-25-2016, 10:30 AM

Yeah I like that better, but what if its a cranky hippy senior citizen yelling about getting the hell off of his lawn because of the butteflies man, we need to think of the butterflies.

Makarov · 08-25-2016, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Yeah, a massive loan their kids are going to have to pay back.

I wish we had heard more of this rhetoric when the province was making large withdrawals from the petro-resource inheritance to keep taxes artificially low.

Anyway, the province (those drunken sailor spends olive) announced yesterday that it would reduce its contribution to transit projects from 33% to 25%. Personally, I think it's a pretty stupid decision but I thought that I would note it here as it apparently was lost amidst all of the calls for cutting spending.

Of course I appreciate that some posters have distinguished (understandably) between infrastructure investment and operational costs. But it does go against much of the prevailing narrative in this thread.

puckedoff · 08-25-2016, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Critical distinction, these are politicians representing an electorate that doesn't want to see cut backs. Blaming politicians is an easy way out here. What's the famous term? Look in the mirror...

I don't disagree. Idealistically speaking (and totally unrealistic I know) these politicians make $130K+ per year to make decisions for the long term economic health of the province and their constituents, not just short term fixes in order to win the next election.

CorsiHockeyLeague · 08-25-2016, 10:36 AM

Isn't transit infrastructure basically the one best possible thing for a government to spend borrowed money one? Like if you were forced to pick one thing to budget for despite a shortfall in revenue, wouldn't that be it?

It's almost comedic. "You guys really need to cut spending beca- NO WAIT! NOT THAT WAY!"

Dentoman · 08-25-2016, 10:37 AM

47,000 new public sector workers ..... INSANE!!

Everytime I read this thread I laugh and cry at the same time .... this government is so inept it is hilarious, but sad because it is devastating this province for years to come.

As my brother from Ontario said on the Alberta election night, "Good luck, we are nowhere near recovering from Bob Rae." I laughed then, not now, because he is right.

Robbob · 08-25-2016, 10:42 AM

Sounds like they reduced the infrastructure contribution from 33% to 25% because the feds announced the 10 billion coming from them for infrastructure projects.

CliffFletcher · 08-25-2016, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Isn't transit infrastructure basically the one best possible thing for a government to spend borrowed money one? Like if you were forced to pick one thing to budget for despite a shortfall in revenue, wouldn't that be it?

It's almost comedic. "You guys really need to cut spending beca- NO WAIT! NOT THAT WAY!"

I think it's becoming pretty clear that the raison d'etre of this government is to protect the jobs and compensation of its core supporters.

Resolute 14 · 08-25-2016, 11:23 AM

Rachel Notley, who wants her government to be able to hose industry and employers without consequences, has the balls to accuse power companies of wanting a "free ride".

She is just such an utterly delusional hypocrite.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2901994/no.../?sf34268202=1

killer_carlson · 08-25-2016, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I think it's becoming pretty clear that the raison d'etre of this government is to protect the jobs and compensation of its core supporters.

A lot of the public service are not NDP supporters. I think many were PC supporters who'd had it with irrational highly politicized instructions from the PCs.

However the NDP is positioning themselves to draw the WR/JKPC to focus on slashing jobs, thereby pulling more of the public service to the NDP.

Tron_fdc · 08-25-2016, 11:29 AM

I work in infrastructure, most of our clients (roadbuilders, cement plants, etc) are all sitting around waiting for all the new projects to be announced. You can't just flip a switch, throw out a few billion for whatever, and expect everyone to jump back to work. The US tried that in '08 and ended up with multi million dollar flower gardens.

It's one thing to announce all this spending, it's another to actually do it properly. I have no such faith that is going to happen here.