Alberta Politics Thread

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

That's Capital Plan numbers. Infrastructure spending, not operating spending.

And while the forecast this year is calling for 6.5B to be direct borrowing only 1.75B is for the increase in operating costs you are talking about. The rest is Capital Plan, Disaster relief (that's 1B on it's own), etc. They are not spending tonnes of money to keep the lights on as much as people think.

"Only" 1.75B?! If that number is really not a big deal then just find places to cut it.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

But your posts are mindless drivel. You keep inventing numbers wholesale that support your narrative while blindly ignoring things like "reality" and "facts". Enjoy your opinion. It doesn't jive with the real world.

Have you not noticed that you keep demanding that people debate you, only to get outright ignored? It's because nobody wants to waste their time debating a simpleton who has no comprehension as to how things work and gets the fundamentals wrong every single time.

In your entire posting history, the only number I've ever seen you get right is the number of milk jugs that come on a pallet. So get back to work refilling the yogurt and stop pulling BS out of your ass.

No. No it isn't

I don't think the entire board shares your view. But I guess that makes us all wrong right?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Alright, this is bordering on farcical at this point. How many people are going to attempt to have this same conversation before everyone just recognizes the utter futility of it and stops? This thread is like groundhog day, just with people trying to explain economic concepts instead of trying to seduce Andie Macdowell.

So slightly less funny.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Slava

"Only" 1.75B?! If that number is really not a big deal then just find places to cut it.

Right? $1.75Bn is really just a rounding error, anyways.

Slava, could you help me find that $1.75Bn I misplaced the other day?

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by belsarius

That's Capital Plan numbers. Infrastructure spending, not operating spending.

And while the forecast this year is calling for 6.5B to be direct borrowing only 1.75B is for the increase in operating costs you are talking about. The rest is Capital Plan, Disaster relief (that's 1B on it's own), etc. They are not spending tonnes of money to keep the lights on as much as people think.

Yep, my bad that is definitely just borrowing for the Capital Plan. But next year, they will be borrowing $5.4B in addition to $5B for the Capital Plan.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

"Only" 1.75B?! If that number is really not a big deal then just find places to cut it.

In perspective it is a 4% increase in spending. Like I said, higher than it probably should be, 2% being around inflation would be a much better target as that would be the same as maintaining spending. The big increases is a 39% increase in spending for Economic Development and Trade, a 12% increase in Labour and a 700% increase for the Status of Women. The largest since number, 500M is health but still only equates to an increase of 3% in spending.

So they are increasing operational spending, in areas that help Economic development and keeping people healthy. Seems like a prudent place for spending.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Alright, this is bordering on farcical at this point. How many people are going to attempt to have this same conversation before everyone just recognizes the utter futility of it and stops? This thread is like groundhog day, just with people trying to explain economic concepts instead of trying to seduce Andie Macdowell.

So slightly less funny.

It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don't think the entire board shares your view. But I guess that makes us all wrong right?

I think we need a poll.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I think we need a poll.

So if one person agrees with me I guess that would make my statement you quoted accurate, by all means go ahead.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I don't think the entire board shares your view. But I guess that makes us all wrong right?

Numerous people have called out your complete failure to understand how business works. I'm not sure anyone has actually sided with your view. Many of the ones that have stayed silent do so because you're on the same team as them.

[Kjesse]

nm. Trying to be funny.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So if one person agrees with me I guess that would make my statement you quoted accurate, by all means go ahead.

Often when one finds themselves the only one against many in a debate it means one of two things: (1) They are the smartest or most experienced person in the room and see things that others do not see or (2) precisely the opposite.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Often when one finds themselves the only one against many in a debate it means one of two things: (1) They are the smartest or most experienced person in the room and see things that others do not see or (2) precisely the opposite.

I'm sure it was posted by another person in this thread but I can't find it right now.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Often when one finds themselves the only one against many in a debate it means one of two things: (1) They are the smartest or most experienced person in the room and see things that others do not see or (2) precisely the opposite.

Many? You mean a handful of people in an Internet thread who other posters also disagree with?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Parallex

No. Because you should be increasing spending during an economic downturn (not cutting it). Then when the economy recovers you should cut spending so that you can pay back the debt you incur when you spend in the downturn. The opposite holds true for taxes (cut during downturn and raise during upturn) but during the last boom the PCAA did the opposite.

Lol. This always gives me a good laugh. Some sort of backwards economics.

So we should pay for people to work by going into more debt? Like i don't understand this. What do we do when the economy rebounds, interest rates go up (which is inevitable) and we have atrocious debt servicing costs. Hasn't the federal government been telling us that we have too much debt and we need to stop borrowing cause borrowing costs will go up?

It must be some sort of joke. I can't help but giggle. To me this is a nation that's really desperate.

I'm going to go buy a car now cause interest rates are low. Doesn't matter how much debt i already have or even what my source of revenue is. I need to spend cause rates are low and i'm sure i'll be fine later and financial issues solve themselves.

Hahaha.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Lol. This always gives me a good laugh. Some sort of backwards economics.

So we should pay for people to work by going into more debt? Like i don't understand this. What do we do when the economy rebounds, interest rates go up (which is inevitable) and we have atrocious debt servicing costs. Hasn't the federal government been telling us that we have too much debt and we need to stop borrowing cause borrowing costs will go up?

It must be some sort of joke. I can't help but giggle. To me this is a nation that's really desperate.

I'm going to go buy a car now cause interest rates are low. Doesn't matter how much debt i already have or even what my source of revenue is. I need to spend cause rates are low and i'm sure i'll be fine later and financial issues solve themselves.

Hahaha.

The concept is that the private sector is cyclical so the government should try to plan their spending counter to that to level out the peaks and Valleys

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Numerous people have called out your complete failure to understand how business works. I'm not sure anyone has actually sided with your view. Many of the ones that have stayed silent do so because you're on the same team as them.

And I see they've elected you to be their official spokesperson, congratulations on your nomination

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

And I see they've elected you to be their official spokesperson, congratulations on your nomination

At risk of piling on, he's not wrong. There are just a lot of information and context gaps in your arguments and I honestly think you need to check out, take another look through the information available, and come back with at least your own side filled out.

You went on about this fictional PST situation earlier, only to balk when I came up with an alternate scenario that actually had more precedent involved and your response was "Well we don't know it's going to be like that." It's hard to have a discussion with someone that is asking for a lot more rope than he's willing to give.

[Red]

So we have reached a major bullying session here. I think those that took it to such personal level should give your heads a good shake. Or at the very least log off for a while.

Disgusting stuff....and really smart, we are all very impressed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

At risk of piling on, he's not wrong. There are just a lot of information and context gaps in your arguments and I honestly think you need to check out, take another look through the information available, and come back with at least your own side filled out.

Numerous people have criticized my position, you're right he's correct. He doesn't think anyone has actually sided with my position. I'm assuming he's being honest about how he feels, but I don't think that by any means makes him "right" as you state. Many of the people the people who remain silent do so because we're on the same "team"? I'm confused as to what he means by team, I'm just one person sharing his views and opinions, I don't feel as though I'm picking sides at all. I wonder how he considers me to be on a team if no one agrees with me? So on that one, unless he has an inbox full of pm's from posters supporting what he's saying, I'd have a hard time saying he's right as opposed to just giving his opinion. But by all means you're free to make your conclusion based on hypotheticals, doesn't make you right either though.

As for information and context gaps, I wonder what your take is on my posts from earlier today when I brought up the fact that the Humpty's owner's letter complaining about the extra costs to his business made no mention of how much his business was making. Only to have it shrugged off as useless information since apparently all that matters is the fact that it is costing him money. Yeah I guess that information would be useless, unless of course you're trying to put the other info he's providing into a context to determine exactly how badly it will affect his business.

As far as checking out, I appreciate you giving your opinion but I'm good man, I'll continue to discuss and share my views. If you have any questions about details of my side, why not ask me to clarify? Or at least clarify specifically what you feel I don't have filled out.

You went on about this fictional PST situation earlier, only to balk when I came up with an alternate scenario that actually had more precedent involved and your response was "Well we don't know it's going to be like that." It's hard to have a discussion with someone that is asking for a lot more rope than he's willing to give.

Just so I understand this correctly, you are opposed to me using a hypothetical situation as an example, yet feel I have to accept any hypotheticals you add to my hypothetical example? PST legislation from another province does not set a precedence for how any potential PST would have to be administered in Alberta. So based on your comment about the difficulties associated with having a discussion with someone that is asking for a lot more rope than they are willing to give, I'd suggest I'm not the reason for any difficulties experienced in discussions between yourself and I.

I have no issue responding to yours or any other posters' posts that are trying to discredit or attack my views. But in the interest of keeping the thread on track, when it comes to these types of posts that seem to have no relation to the topic, whether they are direct or of the passive aggressive variety why don't you guys just send the personal attacks or "mentoring" advice by pm? Up to you guys, but even when they aren't directed at me, I feel the level of disrespect shown to posters by some on this board for simply disagreeing with them brings down the overall quality of this board and simply derails any meaningful discussion.