Here they come after our money

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by longsuffering@Sep 2 2005, 08:00 PM
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?

Alberta already shares the wealth. Shares at ridiculous levels.

That's fine.

The entire point is: if Canada expects us to share more, then Canada had better find something it can share back.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flame On@Sep 2 2005, 08:57 PM
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!

I think Shawnski is generally accurate, but Alberta is almost an oxymoron in this regard.

Our population has boomed over the last several decades. Most of the influx of people have come from the east - typically liberal - and immigrants - also typically liberal. Yet, somehow, a lot of these people magically become Conservative once they cross the Saskatchewan border.

While Canada has consistantly supported the Liberals throughout the last century, Alberta has consistantly supported the Conservatives. Our province has become diametrically opposed to the Federal government such that many people who would be likely to vote Liberal instead vote Conservative. It's been said that if Calgary was in any other province, it would be overwhelmingly Liberal.

People that scoff at the suggestion of western alienation fail to pay attention to this. I suspect that many immigrants to Alberta very quickly see why people are upset with the Liberals, and quickly agree. They see here what they dont get to see out east.

It's all about perspective. Easterners have no interest in our grievances, because we dont matter to them. So long as our welfare cheques keep coming in the mail, they could care less. We have no power or voice politically, we have no power or voice socially, and despite the fact that we keep this nation afloat, we have little to no voice economically - though that is changing as the price of oil skyrockets. Especially as the Loonie is pulled up as a result of becoming an oil dependant currency.

We give a great deal to this federation for very, very little in return. You can't fault people who believe this is an unfair deal for stating it is an unfair deal.

-------------------

note: Obviously I am generalizing a great deal in this post, and there are no absolutes. Personally though, I think these are accurate trends.

[Devils'Advocate]

Snakeeye:
Oh get off it!!!

You say that like the people in Alberta do all the work and the people in Ontario just sit around all day waiting for you to send us welfare cheques. Get a clue.

In 2003 Alberta's GDP was $170.8B. Ontario's was $500B. People here get up in the morning and head off to work here just as much as they do there.

First it's Harper saying Maritimers are lazy. Now we've got Albertans saying that everyone else outside the Alberta boarders are lazy and Albertans are the only ones that do any real work.

THE ARROGANCE!!!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 09:59 PM
My discussion is global.

No it's not.

Maybe the rookies in your business don't know shinguard but that doesn't mean young people or new graduates inherently don't know anything and only have to grow up a little to learn how the world works.

And again, it's quite insulting to read that teachers teach because they can't do anything better.

Of course it might be true, because on the other hand we all know that computer science people only do computer science stuff because they can't do anything but computer science stuff and they only want money. Right?

[MarchHare]

Originally posted by fotze@Sep 2 2005, 11:31 PM
Would Alberta's equalization burden lessen if we just increased our social spending by whatever the surplus is? Quebec students pay far less tuition and it has much better social programs. If Alberta just paid more into that could we just get to the level of 'have not'.

No.

Another common misconception about equalization is that provinces that run a deficit or spend more are entitled to more equalization.

Again, read my previous post and look over the Finance Department page I linked. It explains exactly how equalization works. It's based on each province's ability to generate revenue, regardless of how it spends that money, whether the province is in debt or not, or whether they run a deficit or a balanced budget. If Alberta spent more to lower tuition or increase other social spending, it doesn't affect their revenue-generating power, which is the only factor in determining whether a province receives Equalization.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 2 2005, 10:37 PM
Snakeeye:
Oh get off it!!!

You say that like the people in Alberta do all the work and the people in Ontario just sit around all day waiting for you to send us welfare cheques. Get a clue.

In 2003 Alberta's GDP was $170.8B. Ontario's was $500B. People here get up in the morning and head off to work here just as much as they do there.

First it's Harper saying Maritimers are lazy. Now we've got Albertans saying that everyone else outside the Alberta boarders are lazy and Albertans are the only ones that do any real work.

THE ARROGANCE!!!

Where did I say that Albertans do all the work while Ontarians just sit around?

For clarification:

I consider everyone east of Manitoba to be "Easterners." My comments were specifically referring to everyone east of Ontario, because obviously Ontario pays into the federal transfer system as well. Though I agree with those that say that Ontario is after our money, albeit indirectly, when arguing for lower transfer payments. Every dollar that is returned to your pocket is taken out of mine.

I have consistantly referred to the federal transfer program as our "national welfare system." I wasnt literally talking about personal welfare.

Regardless, I am not at all sure how you got what you did out of my post.

I'm certantly not sure how you think that we are saying everyone outside of Alberta is lazy.

[flamingchina]

I just have to concure with the previous statement, I've met many a person who came here, and after 3 months, started saying, OK, now I realize what you're complaining about, and after 2 years, is complaining right alongside.

[Devils'Advocate]

Snakeeye:
(1) "We give a great deal to this federation for very little return". This insinuates that other provinces DON'T GIVE A GREAT DEAL TO THIS FEDERATION.

(2) "Easterners have no interest in our grievances, because we dont matter to them. So long as our welfare cheques keep coming in the mail, they could care less." This insinuates that Easterners are too lazy to look for work... they don't care about Canada and the other provinces as long as they get their welfare.

(3) But primarily it was the "we keep this nation afloat" - which suggests that Alberta earns all the money. It's like the husband who comes home and tells the exhausted wife who's been taking care of the kids all day that he deserves more respect because "he pays all the bills".

[MarchHare]

I have consistantly referred to the federal transfer program as our "national welfare system."

And you would be consistantly wrong. Equalization is nothing at all like welfare. It's not a method to help less fortunate provinces get on their feet and reach the same levels of wealth as richer provinces. It only exists to make sure the citizens of poorer provinces receive relatively equal levels of quality in government services like healthcare and education.

Would you prefer to live in a Canada without Equalization, where Alberta and Ontario could afford to provide their citizens with the best healthcare money can buy but citizens of the Atlantic Provinces would have third-world healthcare or no healthcare at all?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Devils Advocate+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils Advocate)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(1) "We give a great deal to this federation for very little return". This insinuates that other provinces DON'T GIVE A GREAT DEAL TO THIS FEDERATION.[/b]

You are trying to turn the word "deal" into a quantifiable number where it wasnt used as such. I never stated or implied that other provinces dont put a great deal into this federation. I said that Alberta doesnt get back nearly what it puts in. ie: we have a bad bargain.

Originally posted by Devils Advocate@
(2) "Easterners have no interest in our grievances, because we dont matter to them. So long as our welfare cheques keep coming in the mail, they could care less." This insinuates that Easterners are too lazy to look for work... they don't care about Canada and the other provinces as long as they get their welfare.

Once again, you are confusing personal welfare with my description of the transfer system. I'll say it again: my usage of "national welfare" has nothing to do with indivudal welfare, and people being too lazy to get jobs.

<!--QuoteBegin-Devils Advocate
(3) But primarily it was the "we keep this nation afloat" - which suggests that Alberta earns all the money. It's like the husband who comes home and tells the exhausted wife who's been taking care of the kids all day that he deserves more respect because "he pays all the bills".[/quote]

To use your analogy, why doesnt the husband deserve that respect? Certantly the wife deserves a great deal of respect herself, but your comments seem to insinuate that the husband doesnt deserve as much respect because the wife works harder? Why is respecting both parties mutually exclusive?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Sep 2 2005, 11:02 PM

And you would be consistantly wrong. Equalization is nothing at all like welfare. It's not a method to help less fortunate provinces get on their feet and reach the same levels of wealth as richer provinces. It only exists to make sure the citizens of poorer provinces receive relatively equal levels of quality in government services like healthcare and education.

Would you prefer to live in a Canada without Equalization, where Alberta and Ontario could afford to provide their citizens with the best healthcare money can buy but citizens of the Atlantic Provinces would have third-world healthcare or no healthcare at all?

True, though I should clarify that I generally mean far more than the federal transfer system when I am referring to "national welfare system." That was a poorly worded post.

According to the government, $10.9 billion will be transferred to the eight "have nots" as part of the transfer system from Alberta and Ontario this year.

Ontario complains that it receives $23 billion less in federal spending than it gives. Alberta says their number is $9.3 billion.

Combined, the two provinces give over $32 billion to the rest of Canada that they do not get back. $21 billion of that is outside of the transfer system.

When I talk about the national welfare system, I am including that figure. That money is going somewhere, and it isnt Alberta or Ontario.

[Jade]

March Hare, why do you keep bringing up how the system currently works when you seem to be agruing in favor of the potential changes to the system? While it is currently true that equalization is based on equal sharing of revenue, the article clearly stated that Alberta should have to pay in more than it's fair share according to those provisions in order to bankrole other provinces. That is not fair. Yes Alberta is doing well right now, but don't forget, that is only because it possesses a wealth of a limited resource. That resource will run out eventually, and if we spend all of the revenue from that resource on other provinces, what will happen to us when this happens? As it stands now, there will be big problems for the whole country when the oil runs out, given how much it is funding. You also said that alberta will never be the only province to pay in, again siting the current equalization agreement. But the whole reason that this topic is hot right now, is that the Ontario government has asked for changes to the equalization system so that it won't have to pay in as much (essentially guaranteeing that Alberta will have to pay in more to keep funding of the other provinces at the same level).

Would you prefer to live in a Canada without Equalization, where Alberta and Ontario could afford to provide their citizens with the best healthcare money can buy but citizens of the Atlantic Provinces would have third-world healthcare or no healthcare at all?

No one here has said that they want to stop the transfer payments, just that Alberta shouldn't have to put in more than its fair share. And I certainly would prefer to live in a Canada where Albertans don't have to pay an Alberta health care fee, just so that we can get the same healthcare the rest of the country is getting for free. Explain to me how that is fair.

DA, maybe you are right that Ontario does not want to completely stop transfer payments, but when you consider that they are threatening that they will start having to pull money out in five years instead of giving money in, it does seem like they want to significantly decrease what they are paying. And since Alberta is the only other province paying in, it looks like we will have to pick up the slack.

[FireFly]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 2 2005, 10:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 2 2005, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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. [/b][/quote]
Actually, it's also a platform of the Conservatives. They would get more seats, the liberals would get fewer, and the PQ would also get fewer, (I think.) It would make the current government require at all times a three way negotiation. Things would get done slower.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Sep 3 2005, 06:02 AM

And you would be consistantly wrong. Equalization is nothing at all like welfare. It's not a method to help less fortunate provinces get on their feet and reach the same levels of wealth as richer provinces. It only exists to make sure the citizens of poorer provinces receive relatively equal levels of quality in government services like healthcare and education.

Would you prefer to live in a Canada without Equalization, where Alberta and Ontario could afford to provide their citizens with the best healthcare money can buy but citizens of the Atlantic Provinces would have third-world healthcare or no healthcare at all?

Again....


ABSOLUTELY NO "Have-not" province has EVER become a "Have" province because of equalization payments. In fact, since it's induction, (no matter how good the intentions) more provinces have become "Have-not" provinces. Equalization payments are not being used by the HN provinces for anything other than covering for mismanagement and incompetant governance.


This reminds me of a thread last year when the People Republic of Saskatchewan re-elected their communist government and someone defended the province. Saying that they too had a balanced budget and that in fact alcohol prices amoungst many other things were much cheaper in Saskatchewan than in Alberta thanks to lower taxes and such. It was pointed out that Saskatchewan had only balanced their budget thanks to increased equalization payment. So those cheaper prices were simply being subsidized by the government.

Soooooooo...

if the HN Provinces were actually paying for their much needed education, healthcare and infrastructure instead of using it for pet social programs. I could see the value.

But as it stands...yes I could live in a Canada where only Ontario and Alberta could pay for top quality health and education. It wouldn't be long before BC stops worrying about the legalisation of marijuana and grabbed some reality and became the richest province in Canada. The Maritimes would soon realise that investing in cross boarder trade and business would go a lot farther than investing in a bloated wellfare system.

[duncan]

Originally posted by Shawnski@Sep 2 2005, 11:28 PM


IF he had worded it as it probably is, he would be saying that "since Ontario has a 'Big Inefficient Goverment' and 'Highly Overpaid Unionized Workforce' that supplies 'public services', the majority of Ontarians are paid less than those supplying governmental services, thus it is 'an ideal definition of a have-not fiscal province.'"

That is the one of the most assinine statement I have read here. Do you have inside information into the 'Unionized Workforce' that provides the public services in Ontario? No, but you freely guess their wages, and subsequently blame the debt on them. The debt in Ontario was created by two situations; a high level of people needing assistance, immigrating to the province (the number of 'new Ontarians' requesting public assistance rose by 107% between 1995 and 2003, while the number of providers dropped by 45%) and a money hungry Tory government selling off its assets to friends. The main sources of income for the government, other than taxation, were road tolls and licencing. Harris decided to sell off the 407 toll control to a buddy, who is minting his own money now, because he made a one-time payment on an open-ended deal that allows him to raise tolls at will. He also privatized the portions of the MTO and MNR that provided licences, as well as the Land Registry and Assesment groups that received public funds on home sales. Hmm more expenses with less income.......I think that causes a debt.

Lets take a look at these service providers;
Ontario nurses- No contract for two years, no raise for three years, 75% of workforce part-time or casual.... several deaths with SARS....... yeah, definitely over-paid.
Provincial Jail Guards- Privatized two facilities, reduced safety equipment, third lowest average wage among provincial CO's, while having the highest percentage of hard-to-handle offenders in Canada.........come give it a try.
Vehicle licencing staff- now a private company, that bills the government at the same rate as the previous Public group, but pays the staff half as much.
Road workers- again private company, that is paying the workers minimum wage.... damn that's over-paid.
Lab-workers- privatized
Produce inspectors-privatized
Meat inspectors-mostly lower contract workers.
Probation/Parole officers- 80% raise in case load......5% raise in pay.
Social Workers- 75% raise in case loads........3% raise in pay

Where did the money go?
1. Conservative governement granted themselves a 37% raise
2. Conservative government gave $350M to the Northern Development Group, headed by Premier Harris' highschool buddy, to build private golf courses and resorts.
3. Conservative Government granted tax breaks to professional sports teams in Ontario, even though then Premier Harris announced he wouldn't, and subsequent premier Eves stated they didn't.
4. Privatization deals with Harris cronies, gave them one-time payments, and no future income
5. SARS
6. NAFTA
7. MAD COW- the area I live in is heavy farming, and has taken a huge hit as well.

I have been a Correctional Officer for 13 years, a proud Public Servant. I welcome you to step in and give it a try, to see if I am over-paid or not. Spend a few days in the pit of society, with violent offenders, after having protective equipment removed from your arsenal. Live with someone throwing bodily fluids at you, biting you, attempting to stab you....... But keep a profesional attitude, and a smile on your face.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 2 2005, 11:03 PM
Alberta always seems to be yelling "MINE! MINE! MINE! HANDS OFF! IT'S MINE!" Which is a very generous attitude I must say.

Care to explain to me what is wrong with that attitude? What is mine is mine, i.e. it is _not_ yours. If I decide not to share it with you, and you start crying poor, demanding a share of what is not yours, what does that make you? A parasite.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by FireFly@Sep 3 2005, 12:53 AM
Actually, it's also a platform of the Conservatives. They would get more seats, the liberals would get fewer, and the PQ would also get fewer, (I think.) It would make the current government require at all times a three way negotiation. Things would get done slower.

2004 election:

Actual results:
Liberal 135
Conservatives 99
Bloc 54
NDP 19
Chuck Cadman

Proportional representation:
Liberals 113
Conservatives 91
Bloc 38
NDP 48
Green 13

Liberals+NDP = 161 = majority

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty+Sep 3 2005, 05:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame Of Liberty @ Sep 3 2005, 05:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Devils'Advocate@Sep 2 2005, 11:03 PM
Alberta always seems to be yelling "MINE! MINE! MINE! HANDS OFF! IT'S MINE!" Which is a very generous attitude I must say.

Care to explain to me what is wrong with that attitude? What is mine is mine, i.e. it is _not_ yours. If I decide not to share it with you, and you start crying poor, demanding a shate of what is not yours, what does that make you? A parasite. [/b][/quote]
I was wondering when the "Greed is Good" contingent would arrive.

I'm not demanding your money. I'm saying that I support the equalization payments and am happy to pay them. I know the money is going to schools and hospitals that other regions could not afford otherwise. And I don't understand why you would be against that.

But I don't understand the "MINE! MINE! MINE!" concept in personal matters either. Why people choose to be greedy over generous is quite beyond my comprehension. And unfortunately I figure it will be the downfall of the species. Too many adults put their big screen TV ahead of generosity, caring and compassion.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate+Sep 3 2005, 02:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils'Advocate @ Sep 3 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Care to explain to me what is wrong with that attitude? What is mine is mine, i.e. it is _not_ yours. If I decide not to share it with you, and you start crying poor, demanding a shate of what is not yours, what does that make you? A parasite.

I was wondering when the "Greed is Good" contingent would arrive.

I'm not demanding your money. I'm saying that I support the equalization payments and am happy to pay them. I know the money is going to schools and hospitals that other regions could not afford otherwise. And I don't understand why you would be against that.

But I don't understand the "MINE! MINE! MINE!" concept in personal matters either. Why people choose to be greedy over generous is quite beyond my comprehension. And unfortunately I figure it will be the downfall of the species. Too many adults put their big screen TV ahead of generosity, caring and compassion. [/b][/quote]
What does greed have to do with all of this? People want to keep fruits of their labor. Is that greed? If you want to share with others, thats all good. However, why do you call those who think enough is enough greedy?

When it comes to equalization payments, they are not voluntary. People have no choice. They cannot choose to be generous on their own. In your words, they have no choice to make the right decision, to be generous. Instead of that, they are ripped off and it is still not good enough for someone. When they think that it has to stop, you call them greedy?

As for compassion. Who says I have to compassionate with everyone? With everyone the governments points at? I want to adress my monetary help where I see fit. I dont want someone else to be compassionate with my money and then call me greedy.

[EddyBeers]

This might be a little off topic, but does anyone other than me weep for Ontario and the drastic effects that the National OIL Program (the NOP) had on that province during the late 50's and 1960's. As all Albertans know, that is when the good people of Ontario supported the pathetic province of Alberta by subsidizing the price of oil to the tune of paying twice as much for Canadian, Alberta oil as they would have for oil on the world market, mainly from Venezuala at the time. Everyone east of the Ottawa River got screwed by this program just to support Alberta.

When I go to Ontario, I still see the remnants of this devestating program. Families will come up to me and tell me how they lost everythng because of the NOP. They cry "Never again will my family suffer like they did under the NOP".

I am surprised that all these older, wiser, conservative leaning people never bring up the NOP. Surely they must know about it, the last thing we would want in the province of Alberta is an argument over how much Alberta should suffer in the Canadian federation to disintigrate into angy, uninformed hyperbole