Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Runaway spending and borrowing money to operate to pile up $60,000,000,000 in outright debt.

We are already going to be paying $2,000,000,000 a year in debt servicing from now on for that NDP vote.

I've seen this number quoted in a number of places and am a little puzzled as to where it is coming from. Might be I am missing something but the the NDP has been on power for 4 years correct (or is it 5?). So that works out to a deficit of $15 billion/year on average each year they were in power (or $12 billion if it is five years). I know they have been running large deficits but I do not recall seeing anything approaching $15 billion in any single year let alone all four years so where is this $60 billion coming from? Or has the debt compounded to the point of these four years coming out to $60 billion in new debt since they took power? I'm not talking about what they inherited, I would simple like to know what they are responsible for in the time they were in power.

[Slava]

I must be getting old, and before I explain why, let me say that I'm entirely in favour of social programs, the social safety net and all that sort of thing. But the sheer entitlement of people not much younger than I am is just shocking.

I follow someone on twitter (whose account I will not be linking as they evidently get off on the interaction), and they're trying to garner support for subsidized childcare. She makes 6 figures, and somehow thinks that it's cool for taxpayers to foot the bill for childcare because it will make life easier for her (essentially), and she'll have more money. It's one thing to suggest that an income tested version of childcare is beneficial and that there's a public good as a result, but subsidized childcare for people who could otherwise afford it but would rather not spend the money is just mind-numbing.

Who are these people who just think that the government, (or other taxpayers), should subsidize their choices? The government we have in power at this point can't pay for their operations without borrowing money as it is, never mind them subsidizing childcare for people who have incomes that are above the median! I probably should have posted this in the gear grinder thread, because I don't know if it's really related to the election, but the attitude is just frustrating.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Another kook in the UCP...


https://www.albertandp.ca/press-rele...-past-revealed





Vote for me or I'll shoot you in your f'ing face!!!!!

Too much to quote in this article by Corbella but it puts the situation with Nixon in a totally different situation than what you implied.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...berta-election

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Slava

I must be getting old, and before I explain why, let me say that I'm entirely in favour of social programs, the social safety net and all that sort of thing. But the sheer entitlement of people not much younger than I am is just shocking.

I follow someone on twitter (whose account I will not be linking as they evidently get off on the interaction), and they're trying to garner support for subsidized childcare. She makes 6 figures, and somehow thinks that it's cool for taxpayers to foot the bill for childcare because it will make life easier for her (essentially), and she'll have more money. It's one thing to suggest that an income tested version of childcare is beneficial and that there's a public good as a result, but subsidized childcare for people who could otherwise afford it but would rather not spend the money is just mind-numbing.

Who are these people who just think that the government, (or other taxpayers), should subsidize their choices? The government we have in power at this point can't pay for their operations without borrowing money as it is, never mind them subsidizing childcare for people who have incomes that are above the median! I probably should have posted this in the gear grinder thread, because I don't know if it's really related to the election, but the attitude is just frustrating.

I just said, they are as dumb as you've never hoped.

Most people's finances are a total mess, it would totally help her out if somebody else footed the bill for her crotchfruit, because she's awful at managing her money.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by redforever

Too much to quote in this article by Corbella but it puts the situation with Nixon in a totally different situation than what you implied.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...berta-election

One of the cornerstones of any true democracy is the presumption of innocence. Clearly the Alberta NDP — so desperate to win the April 16 election — has forgotten that.

On Sunday, the NDP issued several official news releases dredging up an incident that took place 10 years ago involving Jason Nixon, the United Conservative Party MLA for Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre, who is running for re-election of his seat.

NDP officials had to re-write online statements several times Sunday against Nixon, because they couldn’t bother to get facts straight regarding this incident — initially saying he was “convicted” of assault, which is false. He has never been convicted of any crimes.

The deer was dragged into Nixon’s truck and he then drove directly to the authorities to report what had happened. He wanted Matt to learn a lesson in accountability, even when what is done is an honest mistake.

Nixon, however, was charged with transporting an animal illegally hunted. However, the wildlife officer admitted that it would have been much worse had they abandoned the animal — which is a much more serious and costly violation of hunting laws. A kind of damned-if-he-did and damned-if-he-didn’t scenario.

Eventually all charges against Nixon and several others in that case were dropped on April 27, 2011, after new evidence came to light. Two former addicts in the Mountain Aire recovery program — seeking a $25,000 reward from an organization looking for information about the shooting of wild horses for many years prior to Nixon moving there — made up a story claiming that a dead horse found on a road near the lodge was shot by Nixon.

Not only were Nixon and the others exonerated in Calgary provincial court, but it exposed incompetence of the RCMP members involved and their belief in an outrageous story dreamed up by longtime crack and crystal meth addicts, who made no secret of the fact that they were seeking a monetary reward.

Also last week, some trolls on Twitter brought up 1999 allegations against NDP Finance Minister Joe Ceci, that he fondled a 13-year-old girl way back in 1979. That’s 40 years in the past. Twenty years ago, when the woman decided to sue the then-Calgary alderman, the lawsuit was later dropped.

Is there no end to how far back people will go to expose dirt on politicians?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Zarley

Wow, I scrolled through the news section on the NDP website. Since the election call on March 19th, over 80% of the their press releases are comprised of non-policy related attacks on Jason Kenney or the UCP.

Has a party ever run a campaign that is this devoid of policy? Do they even have a vision for the province?

Has the NDP released a budget yet?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

Who are these people who just think that the government, (or other taxpayers), should subsidize their choices? The government we have in power at this point can't pay for their operations without borrowing money as it is, never mind them subsidizing childcare for people who have incomes that are above the median! I probably should have posted this in the gear grinder thread, because I don't know if it's really related to the election, but the attitude is just frustrating.

A lot of people simply don't think about the connection between government revenues and government spending. They think governments have virtually unlimited money, and politics is all about getting the most of that money for things you want. How it's paid for doesn't even enter their minds.

I'm not sure this is any more common now than it was in the past. 25 years ago I worked with some older, blue-collar guys who complained endlessly about the taxes they paid (even though they didn't declare half their income), while putting their kids through public school, blithely using and abusing the public health care system for frivolous purposes, and otherwise behaving like entitled Canadians.

But if there is an increase in this sort of attitude, I'd hazard that it's down the normalization of carrying huge debt and subsidizing a consumer lifestyle on credit. My parents' generation dreaded debt. Living beyond your means was considered reckless folly that could only end badly. That stigma around debt and credit has vanished. Canadians used to be more conservative and cautious about money than Americans, but today the reverse is true.

[Envitro]

While I agree with your overall sentiment and generally fall in the exact same voter category as you, I see child care slightly differently, more from a purely economic perspective.

We already do state-sponsored childcare in one way, and it's school.
I don't see the difference honestly (apart from the obvious)...

If you free parents up to go earn money, you get more income tax revenue, better overall GDP, and free up cash for spending in the economy.

It doesn't make sense to have one parent work only for the purpose of paying for childcare where 80-90% of their income goes to paying for childcare.

Yes, in this case this lady makes good money. However, if a government program is available to someone that makes $36k/yr, why wouldn't it be available at the same rate to someone making more? Why do all social programs have to be income-tested? In reality, the person making $100k+/yr is paying much more in taxes, so should they not also get some benefit from that?

For example, a person making $36k/yr pays approx. $4,600 in Federal and Provincial taxes. Someone making $100k/yr pays about $24,000 in same taxes.

I don't think it's about entitlement.

I've never used any government service since I've been a tax-paying adult. I have nothing against taxation, but I feel like people on upper-middle end of the tax spectrum get taken for a bit of a ride, paying for government services that they never get any use from.

Another example would be this NDP Carbon Tax rebate. It's income tested, which means that anyone making over $65k of declared income never sees a penny from their rebate. It's just another income tax.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Has the NDP released a budget yet?

Nope.

The NDP government's third-quarter fiscal update, released Wednesday, contains a strong indication that Albertans will not see a budget prior to the spring election.

It includes an update on the government's "path to balance" by 2023-24, a feature never before included in a quarterly update.

"I am preparing a budget. It's the premier's decision when the writ is dropped," he said. "But there will be a Budget 2019."

Ceci said he directed his officials to include the path-to-balance update in the quarterly update. He rejected a suggestion the document was political.

"I thought it was important to remind Albertans that we are on a path to balance," he said. "There has been a great deal of volatility in this province. So I wanted to remind Albertans that we are on that path without harming programs and services that they rely on."

UCP finance critic Drew Barnes said this is the fourth time Ceci has moved the balance date.

"I'm afraid his promise of a path to balance is not worth the paper it's written on," Barnes said Wednesday.

"The NDP's promises couldn't be further from the truth. This is a spend-heavy NDP government that is endangering the future of Alberta, our economy and our next generation."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...2019-1.5035599

[Flames0910]

A lot of people simply don't think about the connection between government revenues and government spending. They think governments have virtually unlimited money, and politics is all about getting the most of that money for things you want. How it's paid for doesn't even enter their minds.

Lol the cognitive dissonance here is unreal. Both sides have their defences here, but only one has had their core theory largely rejected by economists:

"Cutting the carbon tax and slashing the corporate tax rate will actually make us money because trickle down economics!"

and

"Investing in childcare will allow more women to participate in the economy, growing our taxbase."

But no, it must be because those damn dippers think government money is free.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

No one mentioned the NDP or the UCP or any of that, or in any way suggested that this attitude was exclusive to people who vote one way or the other.

So... this must be embarrassing for you.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Whoever wins needs to be building bridges for all Albertans, not just their voters and party members. We're all in this together, attacking each other isn't going to help.

Well there is no doubt Kenney is going to win. Now he needs to tell 1/2 of his MLAs to shut the eff up for 4 years!!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Well there is no doubt Kenney is going to win. Now he needs to tell 1/2 of his MLAs to shut the eff up for 4 years!!

I have a feeling once the election is over and everyone is safely in their seats (or not), we're going to hear unnecessary comments that should not have been said or need to be said during the next government cycle

[Ozy_Flame]

I know we hate polls around here, but 338 Canada posted results from two polls today (Think HQ and Ipsos):

https://blog.338canada.com/2019/04/t...ording-to.html

Both show an NDP gain, although still a Conservative victory (but less than 50%).

Love that the AP is polling in the 8-10% margin - double digits is a huge milestone!

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I know we hate polls around here, but 338 Canada posted results from two polls today (Think HQ and Ipsos):

https://blog.338canada.com/2019/04/t...ording-to.html

Both show an NDP gain, although still a Conservative victory (but less than 50%).

Love that the AP is polling in the 8-10% margin - double digits is a huge milestone!

"Most importantly, the emphasis on Kenney hasn’t drawn voters away from the negative impressions they have of this government’s record; over one-half say Notley’s government has had a negative impact on their lives personally and that appears to be the ballot question for many.”

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by redforever

Too much to quote in this article by Corbella but it puts the situation with Nixon in a totally different situation than what you implied.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...berta-election

Not really, it brings up an entirely different and separate incident that the NDP wasn't talking about at all. So he didn't shoot a horse? How does that change the fact that a woman accused him of saying "do you want to shoot the bitch?" over an altercation that took place months earlier and the subsequent peacebond signed?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...aint-1.4444897

And I guess the firing of a woman for filing a sex harassment compliant also doesn't count because he didn't shoot a horse?

A ruling from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, handed down on Dec. 30, 2008, involved three companies: Nixon's company, Nixon Safety Consulting (NSC); Navigator, a company building a condo in Kelowna; and Con-Forte, a company that performed concrete work on the site. It also involved Greg Ford, an independent contractor.

The tribunal found that Nixon's company fired its safety officer, Kori Harrison, in December 2005 after she complained that Ford had sexually harassed her.

"I find that Mr. Ford sexually harassed Ms. Harrison, and that NSC terminated her employment when she complained," adjudicator Kurt Neuenfeldt wrote in the tribunal's decision.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I know we hate polls around here, but 338 Canada posted results from two polls today (Think HQ and Ipsos):

https://blog.338canada.com/2019/04/t...ording-to.html

Both show an NDP gain, although still a Conservative victory (but less than 50%).

Love that the AP is polling in the 8-10% margin - double digits is a huge milestone!

Nah, I don't really hate polls, I just like the discussions afterwards about how wrong the polls were during an election.


For all we know, the NDP would win this thing, or get club like a small helpless cute furry animal.


I take them for what they are, pretty much a guess

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

I follow someone on twitter (whose account I will not be linking as they evidently get off on the interaction), and they're trying to garner support for subsidized childcare. She makes 6 figures, and somehow thinks that it's cool for taxpayers to foot the bill for childcare because it will make life easier for her (essentially), and she'll have more money. It's one thing to suggest that an income tested version of childcare is beneficial and that there's a public good as a result, but subsidized childcare for people who could otherwise afford it but would rather not spend the money is just mind-numbing.

I'm pretty sure I know who this person is. Would this be the same person who is trying to say that being for the UCP for tax reasons is an invalid opinion because the gibs promised from the NDP exceed the tax savings for anyone who makes under $150,000? Never mind what such policies do to the province's bottom line or the incentives they provide the public?

The other thing beyond entitlement that gets me about this poster is the insistence that there is no other way to think about things but their views.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I'm pretty sure I know who this person is. Would this be the same person who is trying to say that being for the UCP for tax reasons is an invalid opinion because the gibs promised from the NDP exceed the tax savings for anyone who makes under $150,000? Never mind what such policies do to the province's bottom line or the incentives they provide the public?

The other thing beyond entitlement that gets me about this poster is the insistence that there is no other way to think about things but their views.

I'm not sure, but I know that she's complained about the UCP in general. She claims financial expertise, but just blissfully ignores that whole operating deficit issue, so it makes me question a lot of things. There's no question about them not being able to see another point of view though; that is particularly infuriating! Of course you can PM me if you're wondering, but I can't post it here because she would love the attention!

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of people simply don't think about the connection between government revenues and government spending. They think governments have virtually unlimited money, and politics is all about getting the most of that money for things you want. How it's paid for doesn't even enter their minds.

I'm not sure this is any more common now than it was in the past. 25 years ago I worked with some older, blue-collar guys who complained endlessly about the taxes they paid (even though they didn't declare half their income), while putting their kids through public school, blithely using and abusing the public health care system for frivolous purposes, and otherwise behaving like entitled Canadians.

But if there is an increase in this sort of attitude, I'd hazard that it's down the normalization of carrying huge debt and subsidizing a consumer lifestyle on credit. My parents' generation dreaded debt. Living beyond your means was considered reckless folly that could only end badly. That stigma around debt and credit has vanished. Canadians used to be more conservative and cautious about money than Americans, but today the reverse is true.

100% .... Not many of my friends follow the political scene very closely so whenever we get together, they often ask questions. I try to answer them in a very generic way and often do not associate the party name.

When I mention that one party is more in favor of increased spending on public service and another is looking to cut back, the answer is always to go with the person who is spending. When I throw in that the governments credit card balance is incredibly high, the remark is usually about how much they pay in taxes so they should get these things. I then explain that this is why becoming involved in politics is fun because you get to see where your taxes go, not just see them taken away.

If only there was a way to make a completely unbiased program for grade 12 students to take to understand the basics of government, different sides of the spectrum and what the pros and cons of each side are as well as how it impacts their day to day living.

Each party should have to write the pros list for the other parties