Here they come after our money

[Devils'Advocate]

But as for your EEE Senate, it's not equal. PEI shouldn't have as much as say as British Columbia. Your definition of equal is putting a glut of power in the hands of the minority. That's not "equal". I have no problem with elected, though I don't see the use. And efficient... ANYTHING has to be more efficient than the thing we have now....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Shawnski: I don't think he was referring to factory workers. I think he was referring to professionals, like doctors. Doctors make more in Toronto than they do in Edmonton. If they didn't, given the housing cost in Toronto, the doctors would be living under a bridge.

As for the "Who has the real "IT'S MINE" attitude?", I asked above if there was a dispute as to whether Ontario gives more into Canada than it gives out... I really don't see how I, as an Ontarian, am taking your money. We do not get transfer payments from you.

[Resolute 14]

That is the point of the bicameral system though DA.

Frankly, the Hoc should be based around simple population. So yes, Ontario would get a whack more MPs. PEI, by comparison, should have no more than one or maybe two, not four. Quebec, I believe, would lose some MPs.

But, with equal houses, while PEI would have as much say as Ontario or BC in the Senate, it's voice is drowned out by those two provinces in the Commons.

Ideally, PEI would have 11 representatives elected: One MP and ten senators.
Alberta would have 31-32 MPs and ten senators. Ontario would have something like 135-140 MPs and ten senators.

The equality isnt determined by one house, those are necessaraly unequal to balance regional concerns vs population concerns. The equality is determined when you take the two houses as a whole.

PEI doesnt have as much say as BC overall in this system.

[Clarkey]

bi·cam·er·al Pronunciation Key (b-kmr-l)
adj.

1. Composed of or based on two legislative chambers or branches: a bicameral legislature.

Had to check on that one!

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 2 2005, 06:01 PM
But as for your EEE Senate, it's not equal. PEI shouldn't have as much as say as British Columbia. Your definition of equal is putting a glut of power in the hands of the minority. That's not "equal". I have no problem with elected, though I don't see the use. And efficient... ANYTHING has to be more efficient than the thing we have now....

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Shawnski: I don't think he was referring to factory workers. I think he was referring to professionals, like doctors. Doctors make more in Toronto than they do in Edmonton. If they didn't, given the housing cost in Toronto, the doctors would be living under a bridge.

As for the "Who has the real "IT'S MINE" attitude?", I asked above if there was a dispute as to whether Ontario gives more into Canada than it gives out... I really don't see how I, as an Ontarian, am taking your money. We do not get transfer payments from you.

Holy crap, where do I start....

But as for your EEE Senate, it's not equal.

It is the "check and balance" to ENSURE equality of regions. IF Alberta can promote this as the way to go, with the result being PEI having an overly weighted senate in their favour, why can't you understand it?

Provinces have an equal representation in the UPPER house. "Rep By Pop" serves the lower house. THAT is balance.

Shawnski: I don't think he was referring to factory workers. I think he was referring to professionals, like doctors. Doctors make more in Toronto than they do in Edmonton. If they didn't, given the housing cost in Toronto, the doctors would be living under a bridge.

Again, huh? If you think his quote about Ontarians making more than anyone else in the country referred ONLY to professionals like doctors, I think you need to rethink a bit. A lot, actually. It isn't just professionals that make more, it is the general public. The doctor arguement you are putting forward is simplistic at best, silly to the extreme at most.

As for the "Who has the real "IT'S MINE" attitude?", I asked above if there was a dispute as to whether Ontario gives more into Canada than it gives out... I really don't see how I, as an Ontarian, am taking your money. We do not get transfer payments from you.

Wake up and smell the transfer payments.

NO ONE has said we as Albertans are paying YOU as an Ontarian. We are the only two current "have" provinces. We pay everyone else. You are whining about you giving more money to Canada than you get. Fine. WE give MORE money to Canada per capita than YOU. And this thread makes it seem like we aren't giving enough. We are "Whiners"..... "WHINE, WHINE, WHINE..."

Get your head out of your butt and realize what you are saying.

[Jade]

Ok I felt I had to respond to DA's comments

1. As it stands right now, the senate is not worth keeping. It doesn't do anything, and the people who are in it don't necessarily care at all about the province that they are representing. That is a terrible system. While the EEE senate on its own is not truly equal, the whole idea is that it works along with the house of commons so that the system as a whole treats everyone equally. As it stands right now, all that matters is population of a region. While that is important, it allows for the regions with higher populations to stomp on other regions to get what they want. Right now, the government is controlled by the voters out east. While the people in the maritimes and out west can vote, they will never have the power to choose the government that they want, because there is not a high enough population. This can result in their voices not getting heard. As it stands, the liberals figure as long as the bribe the voters in ontario enough, who cares how the west votes. Having an equal number of people per province in the senate, and giving the senate some power would ensure that voices were being heard across the country. Maybe if we had a system like this in place, the whole regional alienation problem would be less of a factor.

2. Nowhere did it state that only professionals make more in ontario that anywhere else in the country. It sounded more like he was talking about the population as a whole making on average more. While I get your whole cost of living argument, you need to understand that the cost of living out here is rising too. I work with someone from ontario who is constantly complaining about the higher cost of food out here as compared to Ontario. I have to agree with the sentiment of why should we pay Ontario so that they can pay there populaion better than we can pay ours.

3. While it's true that Ontario does not currently accept transfer payment, part of the reason Alberta is being told it has to pay more is because Ontario wants to stop giving out payments. That would leave Alberta as the only province paying in. No one in Alberta is saying we should stop the transfer payments, only that we shouldn't necessarily have to increase them so taht Ontario can stop. Don't forget, the only reason Alberta has payed off its debt is that we went through extremely lean times where spending was very low. Alberta has to look out for itself as well, especially if we are going to be in charge of bankrolling all the other provinces. I am all for sharing the wealth to an extent, but if you have one province footing the bill for the entire country, clearly there is a problem.

Just my thoughts

[Shawnski]

And for the record, considering the general youth of a forum like this, there are several "truths" you should ponder.

When you are young, or old, you will tend to be more liberal or even socialist in your ideologies. It is human nature. "Help me" is the theme as many in these areas find costs of housing, lack of income and in the cases of students, tuition, to be areas that put significant pressure on their day to day lives. You are the Liberal or NDP voters.

When you become middle aged, and are in your prime earning years, you now feel that the price you are paid for education and on the job experience you have gained should garner you the rewards of your personal investment. You are now a conservative, unless you have chosen a path whereby you are in a career line that is typically labour related, and you determine that regardless of your enhancement of the company you work within, your tenure is more important, whereby seniority is key. You are the NDP voter. For the most part, you have, or will soon, reach your limit, and thus are protectionist of your position. Your only ability to get a higher wage is to push COLA arguments (and job security issues) when you renegotiate company contracts.

Now, for the students out there that make up a HUGE part of this community, you tend to fall into that Liberal/NDP side due to your current circumstances. And who is teaching you? Professors in college/university? Who are THEY? If they were the best in the field, would they not be working for private enterprise for the highest dollar? If they are teaching you economics for say $65K per year, why are they not working in the private industry and making say $150K per year? Or profs that are "experts" in marketing in the similar situation. Or every other prof out there. "Home town discount"? "Teaching for the love of it"? Nada, they are where they are. A few do so because they choose to, the rest do so because that is all they can do.

Seems like many students live and die by what their profs can sometimes brainwash them with, and their personal opinions reflect that UNTIL they actually go out into the real world for a few years, or even a decade or so. THEN all of a sudden, their viewpoint changes. You are now making it, and the taxation target for those that are not.

I have seen the "believe in prof" mentality here quite frequently, and I know over time that those viewpoints will change with your maturation in life. As it will likely change back as you get into your retirement years, especially if you have not succeeded in the middle years as you could have. Been there, done that.

For those younger in life, question all, be passionate in setting your goals and do everything in your power to achieve them. Never stop that cycle. Your ability to become successful will increase astronomically, as will your willingness to give back to community as you see fit, and will be able to do.

When you apply that to Alberta, as if it were you personally, you would understand the backlash about others whom say that we Albertans HAVE to give more. We are in the middle age here. Just starting to be able to get things in order, no longer having to give up luxuries like proper schooling, hospitals, efficient transportation etc like we have over the last decade or more.

[CaptainCrunch]

If Ottawa ever decides to do another grab like the National Energy Program, I hope whoever's in government shuts off the valves, blows up the well heads and tells Ottawa that if they want the Oil they can damn well pull it out of the ground. Because Ottawa won't be happy until they teach us darn red necks a lesson, and the only place that they can hit us is in the pocket book.

What good would it be to belong to Canada if we're paying the bills for all of the rest of the provinces, what possible benefit are we getting that we can't provide internally.

National Defense? Whatever we don't have that now

Access to ports? Just as easy to negotiate the use of the U.S. ports as the ones in B.C.

Health Care? Because the feds are doing such a great job with that

I've lost total faith in this country, I just don't see any benefit to it.

Under the NEP it would have saved this province a lot of problems if we wouldn't have taken the Oil out of the ground, I remember how devestated this province was, while Marc Lalonde and his socialist croneys tried to destroy Alberta's economy so they could secure votes in the East.

I've lost total faith in the Canadian version of democracy.

And before you bitch me out, or give me the big Canada love it or leave it speech, save it, I obviously saw enough in Canada at one point to throw away a bunch of years serving it. I've loyally paid my taxes in the hopes that the government would actually use it towards good causes.

I just don't see whats worth saving anymore.

[Hakan]

So we're wrong and you're right because you're older and know how things actually work without our quixotic university lenses on?

*puke*

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 2 2005, 07:32 PM
So we're wrong and you're right because you're older and know how things actually work without our quixotic university lenses on?

*puke*

You will only understand when you take your quizotic university lenses off.

Time will tell.

And rest assured, you will *puke* less after university.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 05:16 PM
It is the "check and balance" to ENSURE equality of regions. IF Alberta can promote this as the way to go, with the result being PEI having an overly weighted senate in their favour, why can't you understand it?

Provinces have an equal representation in the UPPER house. "Rep By Pop" serves the lower house. THAT is balance.

Again, huh? If you think his quote about Ontarians making more than anyone else in the country referred ONLY to professionals like doctors, I think you need to rethink a bit. A lot, actually. It isn't just professionals that make more, it is the general public. The doctor arguement you are putting forward is simplistic at best, silly to the extreme at most.

Wake up and smell the transfer payments.

NO ONE has said we as Albertans are paying YOU as an Ontarian. We are the only two current "have" provinces. We pay everyone else. You are whining about you giving more money to Canada than you get. Fine. WE give MORE money to Canada per capita than YOU. And this thread makes it seem like we aren't giving enough. We are "Whiners"..... "WHINE, WHINE, WHINE..."

Get your head out of your butt and realize what you are saying.

That lower house based on population and the upper house based on province is *NOT* equal. In the lower house one voter in Ontario = one voter in BC = one voter in PEI. But not in the upper house. In that upper house Ontario has less proportional representation. So in the lower house, I'm equal. In the upper house I'm less than equal. That's no f'n way to run a democracy!!!! What you really are advocating here is taking the power from the majority of Canadians and giving more power in the hands of the smaller, less populated provinces. So the minority rule the majority.

And yes, the general public makes more in Ontario... but what he was referring to was that government services cost more in Ontario than in other provinces because of high wages. There are not too many auto workers on the government payroll. Doctors expect to paid among the elite money earners, but out of the government dollars. In Toronto, that's a lot more than in Regina. So X amount of dollars gets 1 doctor in Toronto, but 2 in Regina. Fewer services. Same is true for the other workers with the government, lawyers, city planners, computer scientists, whatever... transfer payments are based on need and population. So we PAY OUT far more money than we get back, despite NEEDING more money.

As for the Ontarian part - there was a LOT of mention of "Easterners" wanting to get their hands on Alberta's money. I consider myself an Easterner. If you meant Quebec or the Maritimes, you should have said so. But just from reading this thread, and reading between the lines, I see there is a lot of "Ontario wants to take our money"!

And by the way, the "head out of your ass" comment shows the respect and class that I generally expect from those that hold similar opinions to your own. It would be nice to be able to have a political discussion without the personal digs, but it would appear that it is too difficult a task for some. Pity.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Jade@Sep 2 2005, 05:44 PM
3. While it's true that Ontario does not currently accept transfer payment, part of the reason Alberta is being told it has to pay more is because Ontario wants to stop giving out payments. That would leave Alberta as the only province paying in. No one in Alberta is saying we should stop the transfer payments, only that we shouldn't necessarily have to increase them so taht Ontario can stop. Don't forget, the only reason Alberta has payed off its debt is that we went through extremely lean times where spending was very low. Alberta has to look out for itself as well, especially if we are going to be in charge of bankrolling all the other provinces. I am all for sharing the wealth to an extent, but if you have one province footing the bill for the entire country, clearly there is a problem.

Just my thoughts

Hold your horses right there!!!

Can I get a link please to some documentation that says that Ontario is looking to STOP giving transfer payments? From what I understand, the premier has asked Ottawa for a REDUCTION in the 23B that we contribute to transfer payments.

Here is what the premier said on June 2nd:
"We accept our leadership role within Canada. We are proud to help pay for training in Halifax and St. John's, surgeries in Montreal and Winnipeg and postsecondary education in Whitehorse and Moncton," Premier McGuinty said in a speech to the Canadian Newspaper Association's "Super Conference" in Ottawa, "But we believe this support should be confined to one accountable, transparent federal program, and that's Equalization. We believe fairness dictates that ‘Equalization by stealth' be ended."

That sounds like he is committed to continuing to pay equalization/transfer payments. But for now, I'll take your word for it that the premier wants to STOP giving transfer payments. But I'd sure like to see a link to that.....

[CaptainCrunch]

That lower house based on population and the upper house based on province is *NOT* equal. In the lower house one voter in Ontario = one voter in BC = one voter in PEI. But not in the upper house. In that upper house Ontario has less proportional representation. So in the lower house, I'm equal. In the upper house I'm less than equal. That's no f'n way to run a democracy!!!! What you really are advocating here is taking the power from the majority of Canadians and giving more power in the hands of the smaller, less populated provinces. So the minority rule the majority.

Well since the "upper house" is not democratically elected and people are appointed based on how much they sucked up to the man it power, its really irrelevant to discuss the senate and its rubber stamping way. And since regions east of the Ontario Border have next to no say in the policies of the government in place, it basically means that the government dosen't serve Canadian's it serves Ontario, and Quebec. If you want the one vote - one person thing, then you do it in the truest sense and remove the voting for seats theory and make it a true democracy. But its irrelevant, there will never be electorial or senate reform as long as the Liberals have the key to the vault because the current system serves them just nicely.

As for the Ontarian part - there was a LOT of mention of "Easterners" wanting to get their hands on Alberta's money. I consider myself an Easterner. If you meant Quebec or the Maritimes, you should have said so. But just from reading this thread, and reading between the lines, I see there is a lot of "Ontario wants to take our money"!

I'm amazed that nobody is calling Ontario greedy and whiney considering they're complaining about paying equalization, and want it reduced or at the least frozen, in essense telling the have not provinces to keep thier hands off of thier money, and be happy with what Ontario decides is fair, but when Albertan's say the same thing, we're greedy manipulative red necks, its a nice double standard that the East can apply to the west and Alberta in particular. Nobody in Alberta is complaining about the current levels, since on a per person basis we're already paying far more then any province. What we're concerned about is the fact that Ontario, and Ottawa are suddenly talking about bringing back the bad old days of raping the Alberta economy.

With the National Energy Program, Ottawa destroyed our economy and when they had stripped us to the bone, Ottawa did nothing to help us out, because, hey we're Albertan's and we don't vote for the Liberals anyways.

Keep the equalization payments at the current levels, fine, but don't keep taking when we're talking about a finite resource.

And by the way, the "head out of your ass" comment shows the respect and class that I generally expect from those that hold similar opinions to your own. It would be nice to be able to have a political discussion without the personal digs, but it would appear that it is too difficult a task for some. Pity.

One of the reasons why I quit posting on this board in any of the political debates is because I got tired of of being called a red neck a racist and a western radical for no reason except that I disagreed with some of my Liberal friends here, so for you to state the above is hypocritical at best when you look at the fact that both sides have been equally guilty. Your painting with a pretty wide paint brush partner.

[HOZ]

2 truths of equalization payments

1) Since the introduction of equlization payments more provinces have become have-nots.

2) No province has become a "HAVE" province thanks to equalization payments.


Equalization payments pay for bad gov't and mismanagement. Have-not provinces have no imputus to change. More payments will not change this fact.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 3 2005, 02:22 AM
2 truths of equalization payments

1) Since the introduction of equlization payments more provinces have become have-nots.

2) No province has become a "HAVE" province thanks to equalization payments.


Equalization payments pay for bad gov't and mismanagement. Have-not provinces have no imputus to change. More payments will not change this fact.

ding ding ding, I declare you the winner with that one. Welfare does not encourage a change of economic situation, it creates dependancy.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 05:57 PM
When you are young, or old, you will tend to be more liberal or even socialist in your ideologies. It is human nature. "Help me" is the theme as many in these areas find costs of housing, lack of income and in the cases of students, tuition, to be areas that put significant pressure on their day to day lives. You are the Liberal or NDP voters.

When you become middle aged, and are in your prime earning years, you now feel that the price you are paid for education and on the job experience you have gained should garner you the rewards of your personal investment. You are now a conservative, unless you have chosen a path whereby you are in a career line that is typically labour related, and you determine that regardless of your enhancement of the company you work within, your tenure is more important, whereby seniority is key. You are the NDP voter. For the most part, you have, or will soon, reach your limit, and thus are protectionist of your position. Your only ability to get a higher wage is to push COLA arguments (and job security issues) when you renegotiate company contracts.

Now, for the students out there that make up a HUGE part of this community, you tend to fall into that Liberal/NDP side due to your current circumstances. And who is teaching you? Professors in college/university? Who are THEY? If they were the best in the field, would they not be working for private enterprise for the highest dollar? If they are teaching you economics for say $65K per year, why are they not working in the private industry and making say $150K per year? Or profs that are "experts" in marketing in the similar situation. Or every other prof out there. "Home town discount"? "Teaching for the love of it"? Nada, they are where they are. A few do so because they choose to, the rest do so because that is all they can do.

Seems like many students live and die by what their profs can sometimes brainwash them with, and their personal opinions reflect that UNTIL they actually go out into the real world for a few years, or even a decade or so. THEN all of a sudden, their viewpoint changes. You are now making it, and the taxation target for those that are not.

I have seen the "believe in prof" mentality here quite frequently, and I know over time that those viewpoints will change with your maturation in life. As it will likely change back as you get into your retirement years, especially if you have not succeeded in the middle years as you could have. Been there, done that.

For those younger in life, question all, be passionate in setting your goals and do everything in your power to achieve them. Never stop that cycle. Your ability to become successful will increase astronomically, as will your willingness to give back to community as you see fit, and will be able to do.

When you apply that to Alberta, as if it were you personally, you would understand the backlash about others whom say that we Albertans HAVE to give more. We are in the middle age here. Just starting to be able to get things in order, no longer having to give up luxuries like proper schooling, hospitals, efficient transportation etc like we have over the last decade or more.

Uhm, when I was a student I was (and often am currently) an NDP voter. Not because I wanted the government to pay my way - I worked two jobs to pay my expenses and borrowed my tuition. That's what the right often assumes. People are leftists because they want the government to give them something. That's completely false reasoning. I make a good sum of money each year and want a government that would take that money and put it to good use for OTHERS. That was certainly the case when I was a student. I was in various environmental groups and human rights causes that I would have liked to have seen addressed. I think students are predominantly NDP/Liberal voters because they are idealistic.

As you get older, you lose those ideals and get caught up with family, a mortgage, a deep desire to have a big screen TV, a better car than your neighbor and you forget all about being a good person and get caught up in ME, ME, ME!! I WANT MORE FOR ME!!!

I don't know what you consider middle-aged, or prime-earning years. I'm just over 30, but I'm making more than I ever expected to at this age. I'll be making 6 figures by the time I'm 40. But I worked VERY hard to get where I am. I put in a lot of hours (most unpaid) and finished a lot of projects on time and on cost. And I'm NOT one that says "I want to be rewarded for my personal investment". I'm one that says "I'm damn lucky to make the money that I do, and I'd like to see that money go to people that need it." I am NOT a conservative and never will be. And I know a lot of people much older than I that think the same way. I've gone knocking door-to-door for the NDP and it's not students that are there volunteering. It's people of all ages. And while it may be true that unions are pro-NDP in the Hamilton area, the gains that were made in the Maritimes, Ottawa and Toronto were NOT from union voters, but from a wide variety of people from various employment backgrounds.

As for the professors in college not being the best in their field, being a computer scientist, I've met some brilliant CS professors that taught me a lot. Why are they not making huge bucks in private industry? BECAUSE THEY ENJOY TEACHING!!!! You toss that off as ridiculous, but I know many people who went into teaching because they love doing it. And they know they are sacrificing money to do it, but they wouldn't have it any other way. They didn't put money as the number one thing in their lives. Which you seem to suggest is the way for all humanity. MONEY! MONEY! MONEY! GREED IS GOOD! My brother has been a professor at St. Mary's university and let me tell you, he's one HELL of a lot smarter than I am when it comes to computers - yet, I'm the one making the big bucks. Believe it or not, some people don't have monetary gain as their prime goal in life.

BTW - you don't get brainwashed by CS professors. To assume that those on the left were mislead by university professors and didn't come up with their opinions on their own, while the right definitely forged their own opinion rather than blindly accepting whatever the Byfields say in the Calgary Sun is ridiculous.

If you apply this to Alberta and Ontario. I'm they guy in the middle of his career, making decent money that WANTS TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE because he can afford it and genuinely cares about other people.

[Shawnski]

That lower house based on population and the upper house based on province is *NOT* equal.

Absolutely true, but it is BALANCED. The lower house predicates the rules, but if the upper, provincially based house, determines those rules are not adequate, they can quash them. THAT equates to provincial equality, and balance.

And yes, the general public makes more in Ontario... but what he was referring to was that government services cost more in Ontario than in other provinces because of high wages.

Not only did he NOT say that, but if he DID, then it falls into exactly how I described it. Too unionized and too inefficient. And one Doc in ON versus two Docs in SK? Come on.

Fewer services. Same is true for the other workers with the government, lawyers, city planners, computer scientists, whatever... transfer payments are based on need and population. So we PAY OUT far more money than we get back, despite NEEDING more money.

And how precisely does this differ from Alberta? Our revenues/payouts are artificially high compared to what we NEED at this point, only because we tightened our belts and paid the price.

As for the Ontarian part - there was a LOT of mention of "Easterners" wanting to get their hands on Alberta's money. I consider myself an Easterner. If you meant Quebec or the Maritimes, you should have said so. But just from reading this thread, and reading between the lines, I see there is a lot of "Ontario wants to take our money"!

And if McQuinty et al doesn't stop claiming poor and wanting to pay less in equalization payments, YES, that means that the per capita payments from Albertans would be paying significantly higher taxation rates than they should. If ON wants to pay less, AB has to pay more. That means that ON IS taking our money simply by paying less of their own. That isn't rocket science.

And by the way, the "head out of your ass" comment shows the respect and class that I generally expect from those that hold similar opinions to your own. It would be nice to be able to have a political discussion without the personal digs, but it would appear that it is too difficult a task for some. Pity.

I stand by my rectal examimation of the thread and subsequent posts within. By stating the position you have, you obviously understand little of the long term, nor even short term ramifications of supporting plundering a single AB industry.

[peter12]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 2 2005, 08:22 PM
2 truths of equalization payments

1) Since the introduction of equlization payments more provinces have become have-nots.

2) No province has become a "HAVE" province thanks to equalization payments.


Equalization payments pay for bad gov't and mismanagement. Have-not provinces have no imputus to change. More payments will not change this fact.

Bingo! First time I have completely agreed with HOZ. Economic levelling sucks, why won't the ######s in power learn from history?

I'm leaning more and more towards starting an Albertan seperatist party of my own. I hardly feel Canadian anymore.

By the way... there have been some absolute world class posts in this discussion. Absolutely amazing stuff.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 2 2005, 07:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 2 2005, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Sep 3 2005, 02:22 AM
2 truths of equalization payments

1) Since the introduction of equlization payments more provinces have become have-nots.

2) No province has become a "HAVE" province thanks to equalization payments.


Equalization payments pay for bad gov't and mismanagement. Have-not provinces have no imputus to change. More payments will not change this fact.

ding ding ding, I declare you the winner with that one. Welfare does not encourage a change of economic situation, it creates dependancy. [/b][/quote]
No, no province has become a have province due to equalization payments. That wasn't the goal. The goal was that each and every Canadian would have a minimum standard of living, every Canadian would have equal access to medical care, every Canadian would have access to public education, etc, etc, etc. The goal wasn't that if Ontario paid out equalization payments to New Brunswick that New Brunswick would magically become a have province. It was about making sure that the citizens of Canada, no matter where they lives, would have the benefits of being a Canadian citizen.

And just so that I'm clear, am I hearing the "lazy maritimers" call here? That the people in the Martimes are becoming dependant and don't want to work? Is that what I'm hearing here?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 07:28 PM
And if McQuinty et al doesn't stop claiming poor and wanting to pay less in equalization payments, YES, that means that the per capita payments from Albertans would be paying significantly higher taxation rates than they should. If ON wants to pay less, AB has to pay more. That means that ON IS taking our money simply by paying less of their own. That isn't rocket science.

I stand by my rectal examimation of the thread and subsequent posts within. By stating the position you have, you obviously understand little of the long term, nor even short term ramifications of supporting plundering a single AB industry.

I wasn't aware that there were only two provinces in Canada. I stand corrected. From the article that I quoted McGuinty from, he said that he would expect transfers to the Maritime provinces to be reduced as their offshore gas revenues start coming in. And even *IF* we paid less and Alberta paid more, Ontario is not taking your money because we are still paying out more in equalization. We receive no money from Alberta. ONTARIO IS NOT TAKING ALBERTA'S TRANSFER MONEY.

And as for plundering the oil industry, I don't think I advocated that here anywhere.... I said that I don't understand why Albertans don't want to share the wealth when there are other parts of the country (NOT ONTARIO) that need it more.

[Hakan]

Originally posted by peter12+Sep 2 2005, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (peter12 @ Sep 2 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Sep 2 2005, 08:22 PM
2 truths of equalization payments

1) Since the introduction of equlization payments more provinces have become have-nots.

2) No province has become a "HAVE" province thanks to equalization payments.


Equalization payments pay for bad gov't and mismanagement. Have-not provinces have no imputus to change. More payments will not change this fact.

Bingo! First time I have completely agreed with HOZ. Economic levelling sucks, why won't the ######s in power learn from history?

I'm leaning more and more towards starting an Albertan seperatist party of my own. I hardly feel Canadian anymore.

By the way... there have been some absolute world class posts in this discussion. Absolutely amazing stuff. [/b][/quote]
Have you considered natural endowments? This is what this thread is about. So by your economic rationality, those regions or provinces that can't make ends meet either adapt and somehow find a way to prosperity or else go extinct?

So for those towns who don't collect enough tax revenue to maintain the highway it borders should just disappear? Those neighbourhoods that don't pay their way in taxes don't get a school or a hospital or upgraded power lines?

I hate attitudes like this. They're spoken from vantages of ultimate priviledge. Look at me I'm wealthy I did it myself its nobody's problem but their own if they can't make it. Newsflash, economics don't work like this. Profit/capital is aquired off the back of someone else making winners and losers. As a winner you're sounding pretty high and mighty for getting somewhere you probably had no role in getting to.

What makes that oil in the ground 'yours'. The fact that your grandparents unknowingly moved into some geopolitical boundary with vast stores of wealth beneath the ground? Please.

edit: you know coming from a supposed Christian do you not find your position on this a little at odds with the religion you supposedly follow? Jesus was the ultimate leftist - socialist in case that ugly little fact has been lost on you.