Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Joborule]

This 100K couple not being enough to handle one child talk catches me off guard.

If a family makes less than 100K, and had one child, would they be considered low-income then because they wouldn't be "comfortable"?

What income range is considered low-income around here anyway?

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Joborule

This 100K couple not being enough to handle one child talk catches me off guard

No one has stated this. The argument is being made that the couple making $100K could direct more of it into the economy with subsidized day care.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Good for your mom for getting through it. You're right that a lot of people can get through it. But that's not really the point is it? I personally have a distaste for this sort of argument. Nothing personal against you, a lot of people make similar statements such as "well, I had to work 18 hours a day, live in squalor, eat expired dog food and I made it so you can too!" It isn't a valid argument. Nobody makes it on their own. Everyone has different degrees of help. Everyone has different degrees of luck. Everyone has different degrees of skills and knowledge. Some people need more help than other people.

As a society, we have to decide how much help we collectively provide and to which people and under which circumstances. It's hard to determine the best path and it's usually messy and we usually get it wrong. But over time we tend to get it a little less wrong until it starts to make more sense. This is why dialogue is important where we hear all opinions, look at facts, examine precedents, see how it's done elsewhere and try to make an objective opinion. Unfortunately, most people aren't objective but pretend to be. Every political thread we have here is a clear example of that. I think I could have told you how 80% of CP would vote before the election was called, the platforms were issued or even the candidates were selected. I could have told you this based on the name of the Party alone. Elections are important: we should take them seriously and not vote based on the colour of the lawn sign.

I'm not saying everyone else should get the exact same treatment cause my family got through it. If Alberta had a surplus right now I think this would be a good idea. Wanting $25 daycare and not worrying about the deficit getting even more out of control is concerning when this province is in shambles right now.

[Ozy_Flame]

Regarding the GSA rollback:

This is what Kenney said last year in early May:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192682/j...ta-grassroots/

“Let me be absolutely stone-cold clear: a United Conservative government will not be changing law or policy to require notification of parents when kids join GSAs,” Kenney said.

I guess he capitulated in the face of member opposition, even when he promises the exact opposite.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Offering it to everyone gets you more votes than offering it to a smaller group of people who were likely voting your way anyway.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

No one has stated this. The argument is being made that the couple making $100K could direct more of it into the economy with subsidized day care.

And if AltaGuy's anecdote about Quebec is accurate, then every dollar this hypothetical family adds to the economy is paid for by removing similar dollars from the economy from other sources. Consequently, this becomes naked wealth redistribution for negligible gain to the economy.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Regarding the GSA rollback:

This is what Kenney said last year in early May:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192682/j...ta-grassroots/

“Let me be absolutely stone-cold clear: a United Conservative government will not be changing law or policy to require notification of parents when kids join GSAs,” Kenney said.

I guess he capitulated in the face of member opposition, even when he promises the exact opposite.

Just to be clear, the ratification of the Education Act does not require notification of parents when kids join GSA's, it does remove the portion making it illegal to inform a parent of a child's involvement. So Kenney has kept his word on this, thus far.

Kenney said the UCP is not proposing mandatory parental notification. He said it would be up to teachers to decide whether it is in the best interest of a child to tell their parents that they are involved with a GSA. Such notification would not be common, he said.

"I think it would be very rare," Kenney said. "Probably only dealing with very young kids or kids with unique emotional and mental health challenges."

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Regarding the GSA rollback:

This is what Kenney said last year in early May:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4192682/j...ta-grassroots/

“Let me be absolutely stone-cold clear: a United Conservative government will not be changing law or policy to require notification of parents when kids join GSAs,” Kenney said.

I guess he capitulated in the face of member opposition, even when he promises the exact opposite.

God, if I hear about the GSA thing one more time, I'mma lose it. For the record, I probably think parent's shouldn't need to be notified, but it is such a marginal/niche issue impacting a subset of a subset of the population. Like the US "bathroom" debate in 2016, for the potential impact, it receives far too much attention. I agree it can have a profound impact on those involved, but why is the economy or pipelines (impacts everyone dramatically) having to take the back seat on the media stage with such a niche issue? Makes no sense beyond trying to paint the right as bigots.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Just to be clear, the ratification of the Education Act does not require notification of parents when kids join GSA's, it does remove the portion making it illegal to inform a parent of a child's involvement. So Kenney has kept his word on this, thus far.

Shades of grey when deciding to expose a child's membership in a GSA leaves the door wide, wide open for interpretation. This is a major problem, especially when attendance can be based on variety of things, including but not limited to bullying, school grades, problems at home, depression and/or suicidal thoughts, etc.

In my opinion there should be no black and white on this; attending a GSA is incredibly important for many at-risk youth and should not be compromised in the slightest. As pointed out by the LGBTQ community, it is one of the few safe spots students have, and for some, the only 45 minute break of the day from a slew of daily issues. I'll have to find the exact stats, but LGBTQ youths are at far greater risk for suicide or harming themselves than non-LGBTQ, many likely because they're outed or feel they will be when they're not ready or don't want to.

A principal can handle discussing falling grades; a principal/school should never be allowed to determine what's best for youth's feelings or preferences, especially when they are not ready.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Shades of grey when deciding to expose a child's membership in a GSA leaves the door wide, wide open for interpretation. This is a major problem, especially when attendance can be based on variety of things, including but not limited to bullying, school grades, problems at home, depression and/or suicidal thoughts, etc.

In my opinion there should be no black and white on this; attending a GSA is incredibly important for many at-risk youth and should not be compromised in the slightest. As pointed out by the LGBTQ community, it is one of the few safe spots students have, and for some, the only 45 minute break of the day from a slew of daily issues.

A principal can handle discussing falling grades; a principal/school should never be allowed to determine what's best for youth's feelings or preferences, especially when they are not ready.

Your opinion is fine.

However saying that Kenney lied and changed his mind on the GSA's is just not true.

That's all I was pointing out.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I agree it can have a profound impact on those involved, but why is the economy or pipelines (impacts everyone dramatically) having to take the back seat on the media stage with such a niche issue? Makes no sense beyond trying to paint the right as bigots.

Ask Kenney why he felt the need to introduce this chaos when he should have just left it alone (as he promised, making him a liar). Maybe that's the bigger question here. He made a non-issue into an issue again for no discernibly good reason.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Your opinion is fine.

However saying that Kenney lied and changed his mind on the GSA's is just not true.

That's all I was pointing out.

Repealing the School Act and reinstating the Education Act is the very definition of changing law or policy, as his direct quote from last year states.

"It does remove the portion making it illegal to inform a parent of a child's involvement." This was your own quote, which also shows the law/policy is being changed.

Can you explain your position further?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Repealing the School Act and reinstating the Education Act is the very definition of changing law or policy, as his direct quote from last year states.

"It does remove the portion making it illegal to inform a parent of a child's involvement." This was your own quote, which also shows the law/policy is being changed.

Can you explain your position further?

Well I think that a major part of understanding the quote would be to look at it in it's entirety, because that's where the meaning lies:

Let me be absolutely stone-cold clear: a United Conservative government will not be changing law or policy to require notification of parents when kids join GSAs,” Kenney said.


So you'll see, there are two main points here. 1) "The UCP will not change a law or policy"... but here's the important part 2) "to require notification of parents when kids join GSA's".

So the promise is not that the will never change any laws. Its that they wont change a law to REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF PARENTS.

Which they still have not done or promised in their policy.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I agree it can have a profound impact on those involved, but why is the economy or pipelines (impacts everyone dramatically) having to take the back seat on the media stage with such a niche issue? Makes no sense beyond trying to paint the right as bigots.

If the right didn't want to be painted as bigots, maybe they shouldn't have turned their focus away from the economy or pipelines to push a bigoted policy.

Basically a complaint of: 'why are we being held accountable for our actions?!'

[Coach]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Especially if Peter has been robbing Paul for generations.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Repealing the School Act and reinstating the Education Act is the very definition of changing law or policy, as his direct quote from last year states.

"It does remove the portion making it illegal to inform a parent of a child's involvement." This was your own quote, which also shows the law/policy is being changed.

Can you explain your position further?

He said he wouldn't change the law in such a manner to require notification of parents when kids join GSAs. Not that he wouldn't change the law at all. The proposed change in law does not require notification of parents when kids join GSAs. Therefore, he has not changed his position or "lied".

You can say it's stupid politically or bad policy, and I agree on both counts, but the repeal the UCP is proposing is totally consistent with the Kenney quote you posted.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And if AltaGuy's anecdote about Quebec is accurate, then every dollar this hypothetical family adds to the economy is paid for by removing similar dollars from the economy from other sources. Consequently, this becomes naked wealth redistribution for negligible gain to the economy.

That's an odd argument. Encouraging workforce participation is "naked wealth redistribution"? Could you provide an example of this?

In Quebec, the success of the childcare subsidy is seen as an economic stimulus and driver of growth in the economy.

[Resolute 14]

If it is revenue neutral, as you said, then it is not driving growth.

[OMG!WTF!]

The thing that makes the gsa issue really stupid is that a teacher has always been able to tell a parent if they feel the kid is in danger or needs help. Why in the world would that conversation need to begin with "Your kid's gay" Like what's wrong with "I think your kid might be having problems and might benefit from counseling". Why does it have to be "and also your kid's gay. Did I mention he's gay? Cause he is." That literally adds nothing to the conversation. Such a stupid thing to argue about. Teachers aren't "highly trained" in this area. They're barely highly trained in teaching.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If it is revenue neutral, as you said, then it is not driving growth.

It is revenue neutral for the public sector... not for the private sector.