Alberta budget news

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

So lay it out then. Where do you cut. We're talking billions here so it's not 'granular' or at the margins. You need deep cuts. Where do they happen.

You need to move past ideology to practice. People just need to bite the bullet? I know you actually don't mean that because you'd be the first to raise a stink if your service levels were affected.

Make large cuts to health care services and privatize a lot of it. We've been throwing massive amounts of money into health care and nothing is ever solved. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alberta spend more on health care services per capita, than any other province in Canada.... and is it significantly better? No.

Slash government spending overall. A 10% spending cut across the board would save an enormous amount of money.

Get rid of the rich gold plated pensions/severance packages the politicians award themselves. ... I know... overall its a drop in the bucket... but they should still do it.

Don't knuckle down to the Doctors demands for even more money (even though Alberta Doctors are the best paid in Canada). Enough is enough. The bank is closed.

[darklord700]

Wildrose might not have the answer but Redford is definately not the answer to our spending problem.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Make large cuts to health care services and privatize a lot of it. We've been throwing massive amounts of money into health care and nothing is ever solved. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Alberta spend more on health care services per capita, than any other province in Canada.... and is it significantly better? No.

Slash government spending overall. A 10% spending cut across the board would save an enormous amount of money.

Get rid of the rich gold plated pensions/severance packages the politicians award themselves. ... I know... overall its a drop in the bucket... but they should still do it.

Don't knuckle down to the Doctors demands for even more money (even though Alberta Doctors are the best paid in Canada). Enough is enough. The bank is closed.

ROFL!

It reads like the Sun comments section. Those are sweeping general ideas, not ways to successfully execute them and maintain service.

I don't want private healthcare.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Fiscal responsibility is not spending more than your revenues and not leaving a massive debt for future generations.

The absolute last resort should be to raise taxes in order to increase revenues. We as Albertans should learn to live a little more frugally. Instead we are like the family that keeps piling debt onto their credit card in order to support a lifestyle that they really can't afford. Eventually that debt will have to be repaid and its our children and their children that will end up being stuck holding the bag.

Right, but that horse is out of the barn. Obviously no one is happy the government dicked it up. But we are where we are now, might as well try and fix the problem rather than augment it, no?

Lifestyle we can't afford? We have a stunning infrastructure deficit (thanks Ralph), and a booming population. We should what...just do nothing? The cost to not to do these things in the present will only skyrocket in the future (not to mention the opportunity cost). Tax increases suck no doubt, but a small or moderate increase now sure beats a massive increase later. But again, people like you (older people, sorry no offense) don't give the slightest bit of a #### about 20 years from now, cause you'll be taking a dirt nap. So you'll be selfish to keep your taxes low now, cause you'll be dead by the time they'll skyrocket from not tackling issues now. The saying is simple: You gotta spend money to make money. Cutting alone will accomplish nothing at all.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Great. Care to point them out? Just show me where the cuts are coming and then as an informed voter I can make the decision on whether I want to support it. Surely you can post this for us all to see now and it wasn't just deleted after the humiliatiing defeat?

Look up their election platform or the numerous posts in the election thread where you attempted to discredit their cuts.

I'm sure you remember...

[yads]

Originally Posted by Slava

And now we're going in circles. This was the problem during the campaign as well; people argue in favour of "cuts" but then you can't get an answer as to where those cuts would take place.

During that campaign many of us pointed out that to balance the budget in the way the Wildrose proposed they would be cutting. We asked where and no real answers came forward. Here we are, 8 months ahead and its the same old rhetoric.

I don't agree with this, just because people have gotten used to the entitlement does not make it a revenue problem. If a family business starts going like gang busters and the family gets used to a certain level of living, then the roof caves in and they can't afford to live in luxury any more. Is that a revenue problem or a spending problem?

Here's an analysis from the US, which I would love to see done for Canada and Alberta.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...m-in-easy.html

Problem in a Nutshell

* Average salaries are up 44%.
* US spending is up 112%.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but that horse is out of the barn. Obviously no one is happy the government dicked it up. But we are where we are now, might as well try and fix the problem rather than augment it, no?

Lifestyle we can't afford? We have a stunning infrastructure deficit (thanks Ralph), and a booming population. We should what...just do nothing? The cost to not to do these things in the present will only skyrocket in the future (not to mention the opportunity cost). Tax increases suck no doubt, but a small or moderate increase now sure beats a massive increase later. But again, people like you (older people, sorry no offense) don't give the slightest bit of a #### about 20 years from now, cause you'll be taking a dirt nap. So you'll be selfish to keep your taxes low now, cause you'll be dead by the time they'll skyrocket from not tackling issues now. The saying is simple: You gotta spend money to make money. Cutting alone will accomplish nothing at all.

Please list some examples of a 'stunning infratsructure deficit'? I mean that's clearly untrue.

At the 'height' of Ralph Kleins cuts, Alberta was still spending as much as the average of every other province in Canada.

This myth has to end.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Look up their election platform or the numerous posts in the election thread where you attempted to discredit their cuts.

I'm sure you remember...

Its funny. I asked Rob Anderson, Danielle Smith and attended a forum where I asked two candidates and none provided anything other than generalities and platitudes. Giving me catchphrases like "trimming the fat" or "finding efficiencies" or "do things smarter" is garbage. We're talking about finding $6B here. This isn't a "have a coffee at home instead of stopping at Starbucks" kind of problem.

The fact that you can't link me to anything where the cuts are detailed and accounted just shows the lack of vision and foresight in their platform.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, but that horse is out of the barn. Obviously no one is happy the government dicked it up. But we are where we are now, might as well try and fix the problem rather than augment it, no?

Lifestyle we can't afford? We have a stunning infrastructure deficit (thanks Ralph), and a booming population. We should what...just do nothing? The cost to not to do these things in the present will only skyrocket in the future (not to mention the opportunity cost). Tax increases suck no doubt, but a small or moderate increase now sure beats a massive increase later. But again, people like you (older people, sorry no offense) don't give the slightest bit of a #### about 20 years from now, cause you'll be taking a dirt nap. So you'll be selfish to keep your taxes low now, cause you'll be dead by the time they'll skyrocket from not tackling issues now. The saying is simple: You gotta spend money to make money. Cutting alone will accomplish nothing at all.

Hey... I don't mind paying more in taxes if necessary.... BUT only after all reasonable cuts to programs and services have been made first. Cut the fat an waste!!! Right now Alberta's revenues and spending are so mismanaged that it amazing that they can still meet the payroll every month. We are one of, if not the wealthiest provinces in Canada and we are spending money like it grows on trees.
Fiscal responsibility to the current government means making sure their pension/severance package is enough to retire to a lifestyle that most of us regular folk only dream about.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its funny. I asked Rob Anderson, Danielle Smith and attended a forum where I asked two candidates and none provided anything other than generalities and platitudes. Giving me catchphrases like "trimming the fat" or "finding efficiencies" or "do things smarter" is garbage. We're talking about finding $6B here. This isn't a "have a coffee at home instead of stopping at Starbucks" kind of problem.

The fact that you can't link me to anything where the cuts are detailed and accounted just shows the lack of vision and foresight in their platform.

The fact you have to resort to made up platitudes to support you point is rather alarming?

Here's there 2012 budget. You can go ahead and call them made up now.

http://www.wildrose.ca/media/2012/02...ative-2012.pdf

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Please list some examples of a 'stunning infratsructure deficit'? I mean that's clearly untrue.

At the 'height' of Ralph Kleins cuts, Alberta was still spending as much as the average of every other province in Canada.

This myth has to end.

And growing faster than every other province. So let met get this straight....Quebec and Ontario spend as much as Alberta on average, but Alberta is growing at 20% rate and them a 5%....thats equal to you?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And growing faster than every other province. So let met get this straight....Quebec and Ontario spend as much as Alberta on average, but Alberta is growing at 20% rate and them a 5%....thats equal to you?

Yes, because the spending is per capita.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, because the spending is per capita.

Go ahead and post the link then. I like my facts to be checkable, not the word of a fierce Wildrose supporter.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Go ahead and post the link then. I like my facts to be checkable, not the word of a fierce Wildrose supporter.

What facts would you like checked, Mr. Wizard?

I would suggest you read the Wildrose budget submission. And you can see the spending problems clearly defined since Lougheed/Getty in detail here:

http://www.taxpayer.com/sites/defaul...d%20Budget.pdf

Specifically: Ralph Klein was elected on the promise to tame the deficit and eliminate Alberta‟s debt, not by increasing taxes, but rather by making spending cuts. And cut he did. In fact, between 1993 and 1997 the Klein government cut 21.6 per cent in program spending. It‟s often suggested that Klein, “cut to the bone,” or implemented “slash and burn” policies. Rhetoric aside, where did Alberta stand in 1997 in comparison to other provinces?

At the depth of the spending cuts in 1996-97, Alberta was still, per capita, the sixth highest spending province in the nation at $4,568.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The fact you have to resort to made up platitudes to support you point is rather alarming?

Here's there 2012 budget. You can go ahead and call them made up now.

http://www.wildrose.ca/media/2012/02...ative-2012.pdf

Oh right. I actually forgot about why I had thought that this document was so amusing. There were so many reasons, but most of all it was the figures they were using for things that were so far off the mark. The $2B carbon capture being one of them. By my calculations I figured that they were hiding huge cuts or at least not being truthful with how things were going to be balanced.

But, I'l play along. To make that work, what are they projecting the price of oil/gas? I don't know the answer to this, but in their "budget" (its not a budget, but I'll use their terminology here), would they also be underwater at this point due to declining oil prices and reduced revenue?

Also, just to ask a stupid question. Why is the "only" fiscally conservative route to cut spending? I happen to think that there is another way here. We have an enormous resource here and a generation or two down the line the only thing we'll have to show our children's children is that we paid lower taxes than everybody else. That is a complete disgrace. Not that we built the best education system we could because of this wealth. Not that we have the most advanced and efficient healthcare system. We don't have amazing infrastructure and public services for all of us hard-working Albertans. WE just have lower taxes. In short, the parties running around promoting themselves as "fiscal conservatives" (which is everybody, but you know which two I'm specifically talking about here) aren't conserving a bloody thing!

If we had a PST, or even increased our taxes and STILL had the lowest taxes in the nation we would have no issue with the budget. If we moved to a budget that wasn't solely reliant on a limited resource with a volatile royalty return we could have the lowest taxes in the country and fund all of our needs. We could conserve the funds (see what I did there?) that we get from our energy supply and maybe one day have something to show for it. Look, I'm as proud as the next guy to be able to tell my grandkids or great grandkids about how awesome it was to be part of the generation that exploited our resource wealth and paid a mere ten percent flat-tax. Its wicked. I'm sure that they'll have no trouble seeing how wise that was for us to do either. Maybe, just maybe there is another way though?

/rant

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And growing faster than every other province. So let met get this straight....Quebec and Ontario spend as much as Alberta on average, but Alberta is growing at 20% rate and them a 5%....thats equal to you?

So, in your mind, a town of a population of 300,000, and growing at 20%, spending $100 million a year, and a city of a population of 3,000,000, growing at 5%, spending $100 million a year, would you say the town is underspending? Because you are comparing the growth rates to the city? Cause that's what you are trying to say here about Alberta and Quebec.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Lifestyle we can't afford? We have a stunning infrastructure deficit (thanks Ralph), and a booming population.

We have a minor infrastructure problem. I take it you have never lived in a place with a real "stunning" infrastructure deficit. I doubt you have even traveled to one, or you would know it when you see it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What will albertans have to show for those royalties?

look at what a mature and honest jurisdiction does with its fossil fuel revenues in Norway. It actually saves them for an endowment that will help fund education, health, and the like for future generations when that resource is ..l..

Huh?

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/business/ahstf/faqs.html

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Knalus

So, in your mind, a town of a population of 300,000, and growing at 20%, spending $100 million a year, and a city of a population of 3,000,000, growing at 5%, spending $100 million a year, would you say the town is underspending? Because you are comparing the growth rates to the city? Cause that's what you are trying to say here about Alberta and Quebec.

A place that has a fast growing population would have a higher need to improve infrastructure to account for that growth, no?

Its not like all this spending is just direct services like paying nurses, teachers or other maintenance costs. We have to build more schools, hospitals and interchanges as well.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Rathji

A place that has a fast growing population would have a higher need to improve infrastructure to account for that growth, no?

Its not like all this spending is just direct services like paying nurses, teachers or other maintenance costs. We have to build more schools, hospitals and interchanges as well.

It's not a one to one comparison, and to pretend it is is disingenuous.