Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[darockwilder]

Originally Posted by Yoho

She has no obligation to answer those health related questions.

Why did they both bother to say how great their immune systems are then? If it's "private" then just say that.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"I have a healthy immune system". Says who? Your naturopath or your chiropractor? What's the test for this?


What a horrible example they set.

Daily ivermectin and nicotine and you're good to go.

[timun]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

No matter how angry some of you are or how much text you write, it doesn't change the facts. Ask yourself how I knew what the broad results of the study would be before the study was released. The underlying facts that Albertans in aggregate pay more into CPP than they receive in benefits isn't really up for debate.

For anyone who actually understands how cpp was designed and it's history prior to CPPIB, it was obvious what the outcome of the study would be because it's axiomatic based on the contribution and benefits formulas.

You can argue that AB should subsidize other Canadians. And that CPP is a reasonable program where subsidies should exist. Those are valid positions are based on values and ideologies. And its plausible a plurality of Albertans feel that way. And if they do, then continuing with CPP makes sense.

But to howl about how the math is based on lies or that AB would necessarily be less responsible with the funds or that it's outside of AB's jurisdiction to unilaterally leave CPP...those are pretty disingenuous arguments imo

I know this post was from a few days ago, but I wanted to bring it back up and respond directly.

Nobody was arguing that "the math is based on lies", nor that Alberta doesn't have jurisdiction to unilaterally 'leave' the CPP by setting up a comparable, nor that an Alberta plan would necessarily be less responsible with the funds. That you're setting that up to have been the thrust of the "angry text" in opposition to an APP is, in and of itself, disingenuous.

The math is based on super-optimistic assumptions, including a base presumption that contributors in Alberta = beneficiaries in Alberta. It's not a lie, but it's not true; call it an exaggeration.

With respect to a future APP being necessarily less responsibly managed, it's not necessarily, but it will be managed by AIMCo and historically AIMCo-managed funds have performed worse, and the UCP government has already stated one of the reasons for creating a separate APP was to direct the fund to invest in O&G where the CPPIB would not, which is absolutely riskier. It's not disingenuous to say that this is what will happen: this is what the UCP government said would happen with an Alberta-managed pension plan. I said it before in an earlier post: I think it's using my and everyone else's pension fund to prop up cronies and I think it's categorically wrong.

[MoneyGuy]

Yeah, I think the APP has low chance of happening. It’s unlikely to pass the plebiscite as various groups (teachers, unions, health-care professionals, NDP) will mobilize their members and supporters in opposition. If by some miracle it does make it past the plebiscite, doesn’t Alberta have to give three years’ withdrawal notice - by which time the UCP may lose an election? I do expect the UCP to spread lies and disception to gain support and wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to hammer this through despite a losing plebiscite vote. I don’t trust them.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yeah, I think the APP has low chance of happening. It’s unlikely to pass the plebiscite as various groups (teachers, unions, health-care professionals, NDP) will mobilize their members and supporters in opposition. If by some miracle it does make it past the plebiscite, doesn’t Alberta have to give three years’ withdrawal notice - by which time the UCP may lose an election? I do expect the UCP to spread lies and disception to gain support and wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to hammer this through despite a losing plebiscite vote. I don’t trust them.

I'm not 100% certain these guys would care if it passes a plebiscite or not, I think the only thing working in our favour is the possibility of ousting them in 4 years. and that might just be a little too late, and Albertans might be a little too stupid to actually oust them.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Totally agree, it is an individual program, not a provincial one. What happens when an Albertan, who has paid (less) into the APP and is promised higher returns, moves to BC? Who pays their pension and how much do they get? CPP shouldn’t pay since it never collected, so APP should pay even though this is no longer an Albertan. Now APP liabilities are higher.

What about someone who works all their life in Nova Scotia but retires to Alberta? Should they tap into this sweet APP? No, they didn’t contribute to it.

Clearly the contributions and benefits need to move with the individual, which puts a lie to the notion of provincial contributions. Now theoretically if APP has significantly different terms there could be an arrangement to shift pension funds between APP and CPP every time a person moves between Alberta and Canada, but that would be a logistics nightmare. I don’t know how Quebec handles it, but I do they are largely tied to CPP because of portability and provide the exact same benefits although with different (currently higher) contribution rates.

A different way to handle this would be to leave CPP alone and start APP fresh. People collect from one or both plans depending where their contributions went, regardless of residency. Without the initial nest egg of CPP transfers this is, of course, a non-starter.

This whole thing is a terrible idea.

I actually think if you go back 25 years, and look at Alberta as a place that had way higher incomes, and way lower cost of living that most of Canada. And maybe it would have made sense to create a mandatory APP top up, back then I think the CPP max was ~$35,000 you could have instated an APP that collected on the 35,001st dollar and up to whatever, $70,000. then you'd be looking at a cohort of people retiring between now and the next 20 years receiving a really nice top-up over other Canadians, reaping the Alberta advantage. and realistically deducting an extra $2000 from all of the 6 figure earners in the province over the past 25 years would not have effected their spending power if broadly applied, it may have effected the resale market of somethings like vacation properties. But the reality is Canada has started to do exactly that for the whole country over the past 4 years, and their isn't really a point in Alberta going down that road, especially now when from a salary prospective the Alberta advantage has evaporated (under conservative governance). So now this is just an exercise of the dumbest people in the room trying to prove how smart they are (I'm specifically referencing Smith).

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No, of course not. But stumbling and muttering about a healthy immune system beforehand as an excuse is nonsense. Part of their job is to communicate to Albertans and do so in ways that genrally improve the province. Waffling about something as simple and safe as a vaccine that will save the province money, and reduce strain on the healthcare system is not helping. I'm not at all surprised, becuase they are all ####ing morons. But this kind of display will absolutely have negative impacts, which Albertans should be concerned about.

First off, we all know Smith lies as she f-cking breathes so you can't trust the answer. Do you think Smith is going to answer in a way that alienates the f-cking morons that voted her in? Of course not. It is not about setting an example for these dipsh-ts, never was.

But secondly, the reporter didn't ask the question to get a real answer; I refuse to believe they're that stupid. They asked because it's a surefire way to get a quote and a soundbite to drive more outrage. Great question, real hard-hitting "gotcha" from whoever that idiot was.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

First off, we all know Smith lies as she f-cking breathes so you can't trust the answer. Do you think Smith is going to answer in a way that alienates the f-cking morons that voted her in? Of course not. It is not about setting an example for these dipsh-ts, never was.

But secondly, the reporter didn't ask the question to get a real answer; I refuse to believe they're that stupid. They asked because it's a surefire way to get a quote and a soundbite to drive more outrage. Great question, real hard-hitting "gotcha" from whoever that idiot was.

Cringe-worthy answer to a cringe-worthy question

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"I have a healthy immune system". Says who? Your naturopath or your chiropractor? What's the test for this?


What a horrible example they set.

More importantly, is Justin going to have the media present for his booster (if he gets one)?

At this point, who gives a #### about whether anyone else or any politician, celebrity, athlete, influencer, etc gets a booster and announces it to the world?

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by Yoho

She has no obligation to answer those health related questions.

They don't answer political yes or no questions either. What a Leadership void.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

More importantly, is Justin going to have the media present for his booster (if he gets one)?

At this point, who gives a #### about whether anyone else or any politician, celebrity, athlete, influencer, etc gets a booster and announces it to the world?

You don't think this is advertising fuel for the ####heads to say "even our premier and health minister wouldn't take this new jab pushed by big pharma." Sadly these people still have influence over those who may sit on the fence this round.


Frankly, it's pretty irresponsible of them, but I don't expect any better. There's a reason it's called "leadership". Something they are wholly unqualified for.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You don't think this is advertising fuel for the ####heads to say "even our premier and health minister wouldn't take this new jab pushed by big pharma." Sadly these people still have influence over those who may sit on the fence this round.


Frankly, it's pretty irresponsible of them, but I don't expect any better. There's a reason it's called "leadership". Something they are wholly unqualified for.

We don't have our political leaders running around and telling us they got the shingles vaccine or HPV or even the flu shot, in many cases. It is irrelevant what these people are doing with respect to what the general public will do. Put together a public campaign telling the province that an updated vaccine is available and how to get it and that is all which is necessary.

[Jacks]

Early poll results are as expected. Most Albertans aren't simple minded idiots who do and think what Smith tells them to. I'm not at all concerned about all this APP crap as long as it goes to a referendum (or gets dropped entirely.

So far only Yoho has voted yes

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by BowRiverBruinsRule

They don't answer political yes or no questions either. What a Leadership void.

Apples and oranges.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We don't have our political leaders running around and telling us they got the shingles vaccine or HPV or even the flu shot, in many cases. It is irrelevant what these people are doing with respect to what the general public will do. Put together a public campaign telling the province that an updated vaccine is available and how to get it and that is all which is necessary.

Actually a quick internet search revealed Obama images getting the flu shot, so I’m pretty sure I can find more of others. Why? Because there’s really no controversy about getting a flu shot, or shouldn’t be. So leaders and celebrities get it, and make it public so that people feel confident and comfortable. It normalizes something. It’s called leadership and it’s sad this is where we are. It has nothing to do with having a good immune system, it’s about slowing the spread and helping the entire community.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"I have a healthy immune system". Says who? Your naturopath or your chiropractor? What's the test for this?


What a horrible example they set.

Kinda unrelated to the thread (sorry) but why the hate for naturopaths and chiropractors?

I have never found any use for either (for myself), but a naturopath 100% has changed my kids life. He went from seeing a doctor, getting prescriptions that didn’t work, to seeing a specialist, more prescriptions that didn’t help either. From there it was 911 calls and hospital stays. No positive outcomes from any.

My wife asked around and we took the kid to see a naturopath. At that point we had nothing to lose. Fast forward 12 months and he is not using any medications, no pills, no sprays, nothing, and is doing great!

Now today, is a naturopath my first stop if something is wrong? No. But it absolutely changed one person’s life. It was an amazing transformation. I guess I just wonder why all the hate directed them?

Bad experience?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We don't have our political leaders running around and telling us they got the shingles vaccine or HPV or even the flu shot, in many cases. It is irrelevant what these people are doing with respect to what the general public will do. Put together a public campaign telling the province that an updated vaccine is available and how to get it and that is all which is necessary.

We probably should have politicians from both parties showing they are following health recommendations from our government. It should be more than just informing people a vaccine is available and how to get it.

If something is a public health benefit it should be promoted.

For example should we just tell people the consequences of smoking and leave it as their choice or should their be active campaigns to discourage smoking.

[Jacks]

nm

[Cappy]

If the APP goes to a referendum I think it is doomed to fail. Not all UCP voters are yoohoo Yohos wanting to stick it to ottawa for some reason. There are too many arguments against it (including conservative wet dream arguments around cost of implementation) for the average informed conservative to think it’s a good idea.

I see almost zero votes from other parties left of UCP.

The idea of leveraging separation rhetoric helping alberta is BS. the only thing Quebec ever got from separation rhetoric was it’s own “nation” (whatever that means), adscam corruption, and massive business flight to Toronto.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1707364389098283208

So much for losing the best and brightest.