Here they come after our money

[Shawnski]

First of all, DA, good and thorough post.

Let me comment on the following:

Uhm, when I was a student I was (and often am currently) an NDP voter.

"Often am currently" seems like you are transitioning as I predicated.

You posted eloquently on how you worked two jobs and other tidbits of community activism. Good for you. Society is better for that. But there are far more cases where I indicated "in general" that people tend to think differently.

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!!!

The me, me, me shyte is arguable. The family (children responsibilities), mortgage (roof over head) are definitely considerations. Sounds like you are single. The big screen and better car and the neighbour are not on the radar for most folks.

As for....

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!!!!

For one, IF they are doing it for their enjoyment, cool. But I have a hard time in believing that these folks are the "best" after a semester or two of teaching... even if they were the best in their fields, after a couple seasons out, guess what... they are BEHIND the wave and teaching second hand info. Damn, the goofs that were assigned to me as "the best of the best" from school were for the most part absolute idiots when in came to real world applications. I was in a VERY volitile work environment, and I would take the 30-40 year old that was with us for a year or more EVERY TIME over a newb with a masters.

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.

Lots of misinformation there. Profs are generally center/left/really left. And they are teaching the youth. It has nothing to do with Byfield (who cares what he says and I didn't even mention him).

IF you are the middle of the road guy, fine. Cool. Guess what? You are not the norm, and I bet you are not married yet. But all in all, I appreciate your response.

[Devils'Advocate]

Shawinsky: You are correct. I don't always vote NDP right now and I am transitioning. The Green party has becoming increasingly more viable and therefore I have been voting for them about as often as I do NDP.

The Byfield thing was just that you believe that people are leftist because they have been brainwashed by university professors. I used to assume that people swing to the right because they've been brainwashed by the conservative western media, especially both the Byfields. But neither is 100% right. Many people come to their own conclusions and have their own opinons weighed by reading both sides. For example, I *DO* read the Calgary Sun columnists, and Ezra Levant... and still disagree with them immensely. To assume people are leftists because of their professors or because of their union would be faulty reasoning.

[longsuffering]

Alberta has an opportunity to make a gesture to the less fortunate parts of the country, BEFORE the federal government decides it will redistribute the wealth.

If I'm not mistaken, back in the Lougheed days, Alberta provided money to other parts of the country from the Heritage Fund. Why not do something similar again?

Sharing the wealth is the 'Canadian' thing to do - and wouldn't it be a PR coup for Ralph? How could the nasty feds come after 'our' money if we're willingly sharing it?

[Red]

Shawnski, I agree with you, younger generation is in for a surprise.

The Pizza place in Bragg Creek has a funny sign on the counter. It says something along this:

"If you think we parents are dumber than you why don't you pack your bags, leave home, pay your own way thru live and raise a family. You better do it now when you still know evrything because when you grow up you will be as stupid as all the other adults."

I butched it, but you get the jist of it. Young people thing they know everything.

To that I say; let's talk again when you hit 35-40.
________
Lovely Wendie99

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 3 2005, 02:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 3 2005, 02:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

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

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? [/b][/quote]
Absolutely not on the lazy maritimer here, I recognize that the average Maritimer, or Saskatchewaner or Manitoba errr person is absolutely hard working, its just to bad that for the most part the governments in the have not provinces are inept and have no long term vision, and have no fricken clue on how to move thier provinces ahead. If I want to call any one in those provinces lazy its the governments and beaurocrats that are perfectly content to maintain the status quo and try to spend thier way out of the hole that they're in instead of trying to improve the economies or maybe tighten thier belts, or maybe diversify thier economies or maybe god knows move into the 20th century let alone the 21st'

And I take umbridge that your trying to accuse me or sterotyping by trying to assume what I said or interpreting based on your view of what I'm saying.

In any region people want to work, and want to feel that they are a contributing member of society, its too bad that the overlords that run thier affairs suck worse then a hoover.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by longsuffering@Sep 3 2005, 03:00 AM
Alberta has an opportunity to make a gesture to the less fortunate parts of the country, BEFORE the federal government decides it will redistribute the wealth.

If I'm not mistaken, back in the Lougheed days, Alberta provided money to other parts of the country from the Heritage Fund. Why not do something similar again?

Sharing the wealth is the 'Canadian' thing to do - and wouldn't it be a PR coup for Ralph? How could the nasty feds come after 'our' money if we're willingly sharing it?

It would be great, however the heritage fund is there to support the province when things are not so rosy, since the average Albertan does not believe that the Government would ever come to our aid if the economy went down the toilet. We need that money as a just in case.

It dosen't matter whether Ralph or whoever is going to run the province decides to make a gesture and write checks to the other provinces out of the goodness of our heart. All we would hear is that "Since Alberta can afford to do this, they can afford to pay more regularly."

If there was trust in the feds to do the right thing, it would certainly be a different story, but since I have no faith in the federal government ever doing anything to help out the west, I think we need to keep our money. Call me cynical, but seeing what the Liberal's are capable of doing when money is the key issue, I'd prefer they didn't get thier hands on it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 3 2005, 02:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 3 2005, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
*IF* Ontario decided to pay less and Alberta had to pay more to make up the gap, then indirectly and directly Ontario is taking money out of our province.

Unless your advocating paying less to the have not provinces.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 08:55 PM


IF you are the middle of the road guy, fine. Cool. Guess what? You are not the norm, and I bet you are not married yet. But all in all, I appreciate your response.

Now come on, don't you think that's just a little condescending (or, perhaps, a lot of bullshinguard)?

The whole "wait until you get older/married/have kids then you'll see the light" angle is a crock. I've never been hitched or knocked someone up, so that means I don't know anything?

As for university profs, I don't imagine that the Management faculty is filled with incompetents or wild-eyed leftists as you seem to imply. Also, some people do actually enjoy teaching. Honest. It doesn't mean they are too incompetent to do anything else.

I agree with you on this NEP/"grubby hands" business Shawnski, but this "you are too young and stupid to understand" argument aimed at those who don't is pretty weak.

[Devils'Advocate]

I have to greatly disagree there CC.

Take Nova Scotia for example. They are doing everything in their power to bring in Hollywood movie productions and spark a TV/film industry there. If it wasn't for government grants and support, "Trailer Park Boys" wouldn't have happened. A friend of mine is trying to do a pilot of a sitcom similar to TPB, but it takes place in a call centre (another part of the maritime diversified economy). The city of Halifax offered the use of their call centre for just the cost of the security guard - no rental charge or anything. Only because they want to see more TV shows like this succeed. However, the Canadian dollar has reduced the number of Hollywood films being done there.

Also in Nova Scotia, they have been trying to attract more computer companies. With so many universities, there are a LOT of computer graduates, but no companies to work for. However, the government has actively sought out businesses such as Keane or AOL to bring their business to Nova Scotia. No resources required beyond intelligent, educated programmers. However, the tech boom/bust stopped the growth of companies there.

The government is doing what it can to diversify the economy. It's *NOT* status quo. I honestly couldn't believe that we could use the call centre that cheaply. But they said outright that they were doing whatever they could to help the TV/film industry grow in the province.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 2 2005, 08:14 PM
*IF* Ontario decided to pay less and Alberta had to pay more to make up the gap, then indirectly and directly Ontario is taking money out of our province.

Unless your advocating paying less to the have not provinces.

I haven't said one way or the other....

I'm saying that McGuinty has said that with more oil and gas revenues coming in, it's not right that the provinces get that money *AND* the equalization payments. The have-not provinces are then double-dipping. They got the deal with the federal Liberals that they get the gas revenues because they are have not provinces. Then they get the same equalization payments because they are have-not provinces. Why are they doubling up?

[Hakan]

Shawnski have you ever wondered why there are so many 'Liberal' and 'leftist' professors? Is it all indoctrination? If you have ever attended a university you would probably know that the paramount teaching any professor gives is to think for yourself so I don't buy the indoctrination thing one bit.

The reason universities and professors are leftist is because frankly there are a lot of really good arguments which support these decisions and alot of crap arguments used by conservatives. Feminism and women's studies was at the vanguard of deconstructing many of the social norms and arguments we have and exposing them as utter crap. In fact some of those theories are so rock solid that the only vantage you have to argue agaist demonstrates you as a bigot. In a profession where open mindedness and critical thought is the most important aspect of your work you tend to be 'Liberal'.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 3 2005, 03:16 AM
I have to greatly disagree there CC.

Take Nova Scotia for example. They are doing everything in their power to bring in Hollywood movie productions and spark a TV/film industry there. If it wasn't for government grants and support, "Trailer Park Boys" wouldn't have happened. A friend of mine is trying to do a pilot of a sitcom similar to TPB, but it takes place in a call centre (another part of the maritime diversivied economy). The city of Halifax offered the use of their call centre for just the cost of the security guard - no rental charge or anything. Only because they want to see more TV shows like this succeed. However, the Canadian dollar has reduced the number of Hollywood films being done there.

Also in Nova Scotia, they have been trying to attract more computer companies. With so many universities, there are a LOT of computer graduates, but no companies to work for. However, the government has actively sought out businesses such as Keane or AOL to bring their business to Nova Scotia. No resources required beyond intelligent, educated programmers. However, the tech boom stopped the growth of companies there.

The government is doing what it can to diversify the economy. It's *NOT* status quo. I honestly couldn't believe that we could use the call centre that cheaply. But they said outright that they were doing whatever they could to help the TV/film industry grow in the province.

And thats a great starting point, and unfortunately they missed the tech bubble, and the movie industy is looking at a drying up phase in Alberta due to the American's wanting to take charge of thier industy, there are also aggressive tax incentives in Montana for example.

Its first steps, and Alberta certainly had to do that when it was becoming a basket case due to some insane government policies, and they had to combine it with aggressive cuts to the bone in spending.

I just have a hard time believing that with the level of education that this country has combined with the resources in every region that provinces can't run at surpluses.

Again I have no problem with some equalization happening on a short term basis while have not provinces get thier houses in order, but now we're just encouraging provincial governments to try to spend thier way out of deficits with other peoples money, and thats a failing grade in economics in the real world.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 2 2005, 08:16 PM
As for university profs, I don't imagine that the Management faculty is filled with incompetents or wild-eyed leftists as you seem to imply. Also, some people do actually enjoy teaching. Honest. It doesn't mean they are too incompetent to do anything else.

I started out trying to get a BComm in Computers and Business Administration @ St. Mary's. I was getting lousy grades because I wasn't parroting the right wing dogma that the economics professors were feeding the class. I had to switch to a BSc. Computers and Mathematics so that opinions couldn't possibly conflict. Calculus rather has an opinion. There's only one answer to any given question and I couldn't have a professor disagree on my answer based on HIS opinion.

Not *all* professors are as left-leaning as some would sterotype them.

[Shawnski]

The whole "wait until you get older/married/have kids then you'll see the light" angle is a crock. I've never been hitched or knocked someone up, so that means I don't know anything?

Tough call there Rouge. The transition into true adulthood doesn't necessarily mean marriage and kids. I have neither. But I get it.

As for university profs, I don't imagine that the Management faculty is filled with incompetents or wild-eyed leftists as you seem to imply. Also, some people do actually enjoy teaching. Honest. It doesn't mean they are too incompetent to do anything else.

Personally, I have NEVER found a teacher or prof that educated me more nor inspired me more than people in the private sector. All I am implying is that if those profs are worth their weight, why are they not applying it in the private sector and receiving their just rewards? The only answer is that they would prefer the role of teacher more, for less money. How many are REALLY doing that? How many are doing that because that is all they can do....

I agree with you on this NEP/"grubby hands" business Shawnski, but this "you are too young and stupid to understand" argument aimed at those who don't is pretty weak.

"Too young and stupid to understand" is not my wording, nor my intention. Intelligence and wisedom are two different things. Wisdom is rarely found in the youth. Intelligence often is. Wisdom tends to come with experience, thus time.

I truly believe the young/old Liberal/NDP argument is quite valid. We are conditioned to it in our consumeristic society. It happens. And this forum caters mainly to the youth. In general, it IS the truth. I am not trying to diss anyone, just stating the norm.

[Flame On]

I gotta say the whole demographic generalizing I think here is way inaccurate.
I think the majority of posters here; and mostly in the off topic area are way right wing. And not just right of centre they're far right. I also know the majority of posters here are younger, or in their twenties or students. As learnt in the age threads.
Doesn't seem like the young ones here are liberal at all to me. Infact I think a lot of 'em are probably heavily influenced by their Looney Left hatin Ma and Pa's from Alberta. People who are still living with guile from the last pillaging of Alberta.
I don't think it's that much different in Alberta in general in terms of right and left and age.
It sounds like you're saying young people are clamouring to give our money away here in Alberta, which I don't believe is the case.
Remember too that young people just starting out are also taking less from society. they've not got kids in school they're not getting their first prostate operation. Old guys with kids have bigger houses and cars soaking and providing more particulates in the air which have health ramifications and thus tax money for health care.
I don't really know where I'm going with this now, but then I wasn't all that clear where you were going. Young people aren't justified in wanting those more liberal approaches you say they want? Which in this province I don't think they do.
Man I've lost the plot on this one!

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Hakan@Sep 2 2005, 09:22 PM
Shawnski have you ever wondered why there are so many 'Liberal' and 'leftist' professors? Is it all indoctrination? If you have ever attended a university you would probably know that the paramount teaching any professor gives is to think for yourself so I don't buy the indoctrination thing one bit.

The reason universities and professors are leftist is because frankly there are a lot of really good arguments which support these decisions and alot of crap arguments used by conservatives. Feminism and women's studies was at the vanguard of deconstructing many of the social norms and arguments we have and exposing them as utter crap. In fact some of those theories are so rock solid that the only vantage you have to argue agaist demonstrates you as a bigot. In a profession where open mindedness and critical thought is the most important aspect of your work you tend to be 'Liberal'.

Hakan, in my industry (computer science) through personal experience, applied knowledge (tons of trial and error basically) have proven significantly better than trying to incorporate a newb into a radically changing environment. There were several cases where some MBA in marketing wanted to impose unrealistic and previously proven flaws into our systems.

You try to argue it with them and their "education" was used over group experience. Leftist teaching or not, sometimes it was simply out of date even before applied in a significantly dynamic environment and failed miserably.

One who teaches "should" be on the leading edge, but more often than most, in the real world, they are not up to speed. Had they stayed within their industry, they could have been leaders and revolutionists, but by stepping out of the loop, they are simply teaching "fata threads" to those that would have learned anyway.

This is a flaw in the overall system. Ultimately, in any area, typically the weaker educates the new, in regards to dynamic areas of study. I will attest that I am biased on the IT front regarding this as I have been in the Cellular business for the last two decades and have seen monumental flops from highly educated folks that could not understand the pace of transition within this extremely dynamic industry.

But it also talks to how students are actually teached. And by whom. IF students got the best teaching, they should meld flawlessly into any new environment within their respective sector. More often than not, those with less "formal" education florished within the cellular industry. They adapted quicker due to less predetermined education by people that had no clue as to the real world industry.

And sorry, after the "feminish and women's studies" offshoot you tried to exploit (with a reference to me being a bigot), I gave up reading. It is neither here nor there. My discussion is global.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 3 2005, 01:51 AM

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.

Is the first past the post and no-free votes in the house of commons make things equal?

No, your point is completely moot, this is already a system which is unfair. Heck, if we had a system like France (proportional seat representation), there would have never been a single Majority gov't for god knows how many years.

EEE senate is a great way to balance the FPP system.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 2 2005, 09:46 PM

Is the first past the post and no-free votes in the house of commons make things equal?

No, your point is completely moot, this is already a system which is unfair. Heck, if we had a system like France (proportional seat representation), there would have never been a single Majority gov't for god knows how many years.

EEE senate is a great way to balance the FPP system.

I completely agree with you. I would absolutely love to have proportional representation!!! It is part of the NDP platform, and for good reason. If we had the last election results with proportional representation, there would be less Conservatives and more NDP. There would be a solid NDP+Liberal co-allition (not one propped up by independants) and we'd be able to get things done a lot quicker.

Edit: Eek. I was a culprit myself of the hated over-quoting.

[MarchHare]

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.

God it was painful reading this thread until Devils'Advocate posted this.

The purpose of Equalization is not to make poor provinces richer.

I'll say that again:

The purpose of Equalization is not to make poor provinces richer.

Its purpose is to ensure that every province can deliver healthcare, education, and other essential government services at a relatively equal level of quality. And by its very nature, unless the per capita GDP of every province magically equals itself out, there will always be have provinces and have-not provinces.

Also, another thing many Albertans seem not to realize is that Alberta isn't even included in the Equalization formula. That's right, Alberta could become 100 times richer than it currently is, but it wouldn't affect the amount of equalization we pay.

How much equalization each province receives is determined by taking the average of the per capita revenue-generating power of the five middle-income provinces (Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, B.C.). Any province below that average receives equalization to bring it up to par. Quebec receives relatively little equalization per capita, but overall they are the largest recipient because of their population. PEI is the biggest per capita recipient, but their population is very tiny. Ontario will never be a have-not province unless their revenue-generating power drops below the average of the other middle-income provinces, regardless of how rich Alberta becomes in comparison.

Anyone who claims that Alberta might be the only have province that funds the other nine should better educate themselves on how equalization works.

Anyway, lots more on Equalization here: http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Sep 2 2005, 06:32 PM
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.

If the NEP II were to come to pass, I suspect that many Albertans would be happy to leave Canada. Except that we will be trying to take our province and our oil with us.