Alberta Politics Thread

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by chemgear

She was well know to have protested against pipelines, the "tarsands" and the energy industry in general before she became Premier. I guess she's doing some token talking but she's also gone ahead and continued to hire anti-pipeline advocates into the positions of power in Alberta.

yeah yeah, we all saw the one picture at the Leg of her standing in the same frame as someone holding an anti-pipeline sign. She hates pipelines, hates them so much she was praised by the PM as one of the reasons he was able to approve two of them.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

The most ignorant scenario is always the one you pulled out of your own ass. Just like all your math failures and economic straw men.

Which scenario was that? Forgive me I'm just trying to help you add some actual substance to your responses, you tend to stick to vague insults and sarcasm without bothering to back up your position. A simple direct question isn't something to get worked up about or irrelevantly insult someone over, you can always choose to simply not respond, which in most cases will do less damage to your argument and credibility.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

What if the changes proposed seriously challenge the return on investment calculation as to actually change the investment decision? Have you considered that a lot of the policy changes are actually that material for a huge swath of businesses in Alberta?

Or is it simply that you can only really see or understand what you can see six feet in front of you and that as long as there are new stores going up in places in Alberta that you feel comfortable in your conclusion that the government can continue making policy changes that hurt profitability of businesses and that the negative consequences are overblown? Maybe there would be more McDonald's and Wal Mart's going up if there were better policy. Do you consider the potential lost opportunity costs of investments not made?

I agree with your assessment that it changes the landscape in which businesses will operate, same as changes will affect the average person. I just simply don't agree with the sky is falling mentality that many people seem to have about it. People are nervous/scared of the unknown, which is understandable. But some people are going completely overboard in some cases as far as their reactions and predictions, to the point where they can't even back up what they're saying.

Yes businesses might go, but they also might not, it has always been that way, that doesn't mean in the long run the province won't bounce back economically, you say I'm only looking 6 feet in front of me, I'd argue that that is what most others are doing. Oh no a tax businesses won't like so they might go and we'll lose jobs! Ok then what? While maintaining an environment that attracts business is important, it's also very important to not allow businesses to dictate how our province is run, and even with these changes there are still provinces, states, countries etc with less business friendly economic policies, yet they somehow manage to remain economically strong, this is important to remember. Any time someone is asked to pay more than they have been for something, be it an individual or a company, they don't want to do it, for obvious reasons, a lot of times they will say things to convince the ones charging them extra that it will hurt them in the long run, sometimes it's legit, other times it's blowing smoke. Even if a company can easily maintain operations and profitability with the carbon tax, do you really expect them to put out a press release saying "yes we graciously accept this new tax and have no problem absorbing the extra cost"?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I wasn't attacking wall, I was critiquing the journalist who wrote the article. I'm not trying to make wall or Notley look good or bad here, I just think it's ridiculous to attack her for carpooling rather than taking a bus when no one knows the reason why she made that choice.

We will probably never know the reasons. The Premier is quite good at stickhandling around questions that put her in a bad light. If asked she'll point fingers at the opposition and what they did or didn't do

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

We will probably never know the reasons. The Premier is quite good at stickhandling around questions that put her in a bad light. If asked she'll point fingers at the opposition and what they did or didn't do

Maybe she will, but that doesn't automatically make what she did wrong either. I would have the same view if it were Brian Jean

[Mister Yamoto]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I wasn't attacking wall, I was critiquing the journalist who wrote the article. I'm not trying to make wall or Notley look good or bad here, I just think it's ridiculous to attack her for carpooling rather than taking a bus when no one knows the reason why she made that choice.

I wouldn't describe being chauffeured around in a bullet proof SUV as carpooling.

I feel so sorry for Brad Wall when he goes to these premiers meetings. He is the only sane one. At least he got some much needed privacy on the bus ride.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mister Yamoto

I wouldn't describe being chauffeured around in a bullet proof SUV as carpooling.

I feel so sorry for Brad Wall when he goes to these premiers meetings. He is the only sane one. At least he got some much needed privacy on the bus ride.

Good grief, ok she had a group transported in a single vehicle all good now? Where did you get the bullet proof part from? Or the chauffeur part for that matter? It's really shocking how quickly people will embellish the facts as presented to try and make a point.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Ignorance of hypotheticals? I'm not denying it's possible, you appear to be adamant though that something you have zero facts to back up happened with certainty. Which scenario sounds more ignorant to you?

Lets cut to the bottom of things here. We are all talking about the impacts of various taxation schemes on businesses, and you waltz in with a hypothetical of "if you are making $1 million (in profit) in a location and can make $500,000 in profit at a different location with a new facility, you would do it". And you somehow think this irrelevant and my-three-year-old-nephew-thinks-this-is-insanely-simplistic hypothetical proves some sort of point. Yet you can't even demonstrate what the point you are trying to prove actually is.

And this was all stated by you in rebuttal to a comment that suggested businesses with the ability to relocate from Alberta's increasingly business hostile environment to more forgiving jurisdictions are likely to do so.

I'm not even going to explain why you are being mocked for all of this, because it is clear that you simply are not capable of understanding.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Maybe she will, but that doesn't automatically make what she did wrong either. I would have the same view if it were Brian Jean

She is sending the wrong message to voters. If you won't lead by example then how can you convince the majority who are against the tax? She has to know that the media and opposition parties will be scrutinizing her every moves.

[GaiJin]

The carbon footprint of the escalade is small potatoes compared to the footprint of all the NDP hacks being flown back and forth from Ontario and B.C. to Edmonton. It's ok, they're on a mission from God.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I wasn't attacking wall, I was critiquing the journalist who wrote the article. I'm not trying to make wall or Notley look good or bad here, I just think it's ridiculous to attack her for carpooling rather than taking a bus when no one knows the reason why she made that choice.

We all know you don't like the SUN and it's journalists. To be fair a good portion of the article contained quotes from Brian Jean and his reasons for why he thought Notley was a hypocrite. Bell put a spin on it like any other journalist would do but because it's the SUN you think we should dismiss it.

Jean like others in the opposition parties have a duty to hold the Premier accountable for his or her actions. He saw something that was hypocritical and went to the media about. Frankly i'm glad he did

If we waited for straight answers from the Premier we wouldn't get any. As we have seen in the past month all she does is deflect and stickhandle around any questions that make her look bad. Good example are the govt spending on ads and the human services minister. She has standards for another party but that changes when it's her party that's under the microscope.. A true hypocrite in the minds of voters.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Lets cut to the bottom of things here. We are all talking about the impacts of various taxation schemes on businesses, and you waltz in with a hypothetical of "if you are making $1 million (in profit) in a location and can make $500,000 in profit at a different location with a new facility, you would do it". And you somehow think this irrelevant and my-three-year-old-nephew-thinks-this-is-insanely-simplistic hypothetical proves some sort of point. Yet you can't even demonstrate what the point you are trying to prove actually is.

I was responding to a poster claiming that businesses will not come to Alberta because of the carbon tax, while I agree it may deter some businesses or make them rethink their business plan for doing so, businesses will always be looking to make money and won't completely refuse to operate in a specific market while allowing their competition to take all the potential business.

And this was all stated by you in rebuttal to a comment that suggested businesses with the ability to relocate from Alberta's increasingly business hostile environment to more forgiving jurisdictions are likely to do so.

This statement is not accurate, see the first portion of this post. My point on businesses leaving was that it is not always as simple as packing up and moving to a different province, there are a number of factors to consider which companies would need to balance the pros and cons of before making such moves, I feel that in most cases the impact of the carbon tax will not be harsh enough to prompt a move.

I'm not even going to explain why you are being mocked for all of this, because it is clear that you simply are not capable of understanding.

You don't need to explain it, people don't like being disagreed with, I get it. Another home run in the potshot department on your part. It's interesting how some in this thread feel justified to mock or ridicule people who don't agree with them, right or wrong. If someone is telling me 2+2=5 and I try to explain it to them that it's not the case, even if they never get it, how is ridiculing them going to get them to understand? The difference in this thread compared to the 2+2 example, is a lot of the debating is based on opinion based speculation, most of which is not backed by definitive facts or exact numbers. We don't know exactly how much the carbon tax is going to cost anyone or how big of a ripple effect it will have, so for any of us to claim to know a definitive outcome for its economic impact is pretty misguided IMO

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

We all know you don't like the SUN and it's journalists. To be fair a good portion of the article contained quotes from Brian Jean and his reasons for why he thought Notley was a hypocrite. Bell put a spin on it like any other journalist would do but because it's the SUN you think we should dismiss it.

Jean like others in the opposition parties have a duty to hold the Premier accountable for his or her actions. He saw something that was hypocritical and went to the media about. Frankly i'm glad he did

If we waited for straight answers from the Premier we wouldn't get any. As we have seen in the past month all she does is deflect and stickhandle around any questions that make her look bad. Good example are the govt spending on ads and the human services minister. She has standards for another party but that changes when it's her party that's under the microscope.. A true hypocrite in the minds of voters.

If you really believe that I'm only attacking the journalism style because of the source I'm not sure how unbiased you'll be in reading any response I give to your claim so I'll just keep it simple, the source that published the article had nothing to do with my critique of the article.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I feel that in most cases the impact of the carbon tax will not be harsh enough to prompt a move.

I doesn't have to be harsh enough to prompt a move. Lots of companies stay here but scale back investment to match the investment climate...part of which is the carbon tax.

The difference in this thread compared to the 2+2 example, is a lot of the debating is based on opinion based speculation, most of which is not backed by definitive facts or exact numbers. We don't know exactly how much the carbon tax is going to cost anyone or how big of a ripple effect it will have, so for any of us to claim to know a definitive outcome for its economic impact is pretty misguided IMO

Well most of the cost of a carbon tax is dead easy to figure out. The effect on the economy might have been easy to figure out, but you weren't allowed to see the government's report on it...

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...arbon-tax.html

The Alberta NDP government is refusing to release a study showing the economic impacts of the carbon tax, despite demands to do so from the opposition Wildrose

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

If you really believe that I'm only attacking the journalism style because of the source I'm not sure how unbiased you'll be in reading any response I give to your claim so I'll just keep it simple, the source that published the article had nothing to do with my critique of the article.

In an earlier post in this thread you said to me in response to article I posted from the Sun "Oh wait, the quoted article came from the Calgary sun..."

Resolute 14 challenged you on that by asking "Yes, it came from a major, mainstream media outlet. What's your point?"

And your response was "Eric Francis and Rick Bell are employed by that media outlet, that's my point."

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

In an earlier post in this thread you said to me in response to article I posted from the Sun "Oh wait, the quoted article came from the Calgary sun..."

Resolute 14 challenged you on that by asking "Yes, it came from a major, mainstream media outlet. What's your point?"

And your response was "Eric Francis and Rick Bell are employed by that media outlet, that's my point."

And what does that have to do with my criticism directed towards this article? I'm not gonna pretend I'm shocked it was printed in the sun, but your insinuation that the only reason I take issue with it and the content is because of the source is a pretty far reach, especially when you consider the points I've made in previous posts addressing this specific argument. It is a poorly written piece of journalism, it could be printed in any publication and it would not change my view. I really don't understand why you can't accept that.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

If costs aren't passed on to the consumer then how would a carbon tax encourage consumers to make reduced carbon purchases. The entire point of a carbon tax is to make things more expensive. If people can't afford it they won't consume it. So the lower class needs subsidies to stay in housing, the middle class reduces diversionary spending, the upper middle class flies less.



And if everything is more expensive you need the wealthy to susidize the poor more as the wealthy can afford it. To argue that a carbon tax won't make everything more expensive is to argue that it won't work

The problem is encouraging the consumer to eat less lettuce and buy fewer imported goods is a very indirect way to reduce carbon and one that reduces quality of living. If the carbon tax was truly revenue neutral then costs wouldn't need to be passed on and every business and individual would have an incentive to reduce direct energy costs while not being screwed over with increased taxes. This government completely missed that part of the equation.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And what does that have to do with my criticism directed towards this article? I'm not gonna pretend I'm shocked it was printed in the sun, but your insinuation that the only reason I take issue with it and the content is because of the source is a pretty far reach, especially when you consider the points I've made in previous posts addressing this specific argument. It is a poorly written piece of journalism, it could be printed in any publication and it would not change my view. I really don't understand why you can't accept that.

I wasn't suggesting it was your only reason. Merely pointing out your bias so anyone else who wants to raise a point with you via an article to make sure it's not from the Sun.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

I wasn't suggesting it was your only reason. Merely pointing out your bias so anyone else who wants to raise a point with you via an article to make sure it's not from the Sun.

The time you are referring to when I discredited the sun, you do recall I actually acknowledged that the point you were making in referencing the article was fair right? Facts don't change simply because of where they printed, but misinformation is rampant in the media, if you have an issue with me being cognizant of that and questioning what I read(regardless of the source) well I'm sorry to disappoint you. If tomorrow the front page of the sun has the headline "flames lose" do you think I'm going to be skeptical about whether or not they lost the game tonight?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The problem is encouraging the consumer to eat less lettuce and buy fewer imported goods is a very indirect way to reduce carbon and one that reduces quality of living. If the carbon tax was truly revenue neutral then costs wouldn't need to be passed on and every business and individual would have an incentive to reduce direct energy costs while not being screwed over with increased taxes. This government completely missed that part of the equation.

Absolutely agree with you.

Any good carbon tax should tax imports, exempt exports and be revenue neutral.