April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

A good article on Alberta secondary education...

I think that the PC>WRA on post-secondary education issues...agree?

Please support your opinion. Otherwise, what are we agreeing or disagreeing on since the article has nothing to do with PC or WRA on post-secondary education issues?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But see we have to spend more than other provinces to make up for the infrastructure shortfalls in the mid-late 90s and of course we are a rapidly expanding province that only figures to grow in population especially as money begins to dry up more and more in the eastern provinces. We need to spend more than others because we have and will have a larger burden than other provinces. Whether we pay for the infrastructure in the present (at a fairly known cost) or in the future (at a very unpredictable cost), we're going to pay for it one way or another. I just want the more responsible approach.

Sigh. Alberta spent like drunken sailors averaging well above other Canadian provinces from 1985-mid 90's. We should have had an infrastructure surplus, but somehow the massive spending disappeared.

True we cut spending for a small period of 5 years. But those 'huge cuts' put us somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of provincial averages.

Since then , we have spent double what growing provinces like BC has in the past decade. For apparently nothing, as all the left ever tells us is we have an unending deficit that can never be caught up to.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The number one reason I'm against the DaniDollars is that they are a waste. A good portion of that money will never stay in this province, which I think makes it wasteful.

And as to infrastructure deficit well heres a personal example. I was in the first full graduation class at Bishop O'Byrne. The year after I left a school built in 2001 (I left in 04) had to bring in portables. I'd imagine with 4 new communities and in the 7 years since I've left that its gotten pretty bad there. Whether you want to say thats poor planning or lack of investment, they both mean more money has to be spent to fix an issue.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The number one reason I'm against the DaniDollars is that they are a waste. A good portion of that money will never stay in this province, which I think makes it wasteful.

Is it safe to assume that you are in favour of a tax increase as well. I know that for me when I am setting my budget I pay for food and shelter first as well as the necessities of life, most of which are produced/sold locally. As I take care of my needs I can spend the rest of my money on the wants. Things like new toys, fancier cars, and foreign vacations. With most of the wants the money will leave the province and since that is bad I assume that you would prefer the government raise taxes to prevent me from harming the economy by shipping my money out when they could do so much more good with my money.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Sigh....This oil money is gonna last forever everyone! Lets just throw it all away while we can!

This is one time, one use money. Investing it into projects that many people in this province will enjoy is worse than letting everyone do whatever the hell they want? Again this isn't your money your spending, its royalty money we'll never see again. When its gone, its gone. So if you give away 20% of royalty surplus, and of that 16 of that 20% never stays in the province, its like a handout to other provinces and countries. Isn't that substantially worse than investing it here?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Sigh. Alberta spent like drunken sailors averaging well above other Canadian provinces from 1985-mid 90's. We should have had an infrastructure surplus, but somehow the massive spending disappeared.

True we cut spending for a small period of 5 years. But those 'huge cuts' put us somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of provincial averages.

Since then , we have spent double what growing provinces like BC has in the past decade. For apparently nothing, as all the left ever tells us is we have an unending deficit that can never be caught up to.

You have said this, in one form or another, over and over in this thread.

I need to question now how you quantify that statement? I assume you mean that we spent more per capita, but is that all? Does it account for differences in population earnings or GDP between the provinces in question? Is there anything else that factors in?

Because saying Alberta spent more than Newfoundland during that time frame is like saying the sky is blue, because Newfoundland was dead broke so of course we spent more money. Did we spend more per capita based on the provincial GDP or average population income though?

Since this is the basis for almost every comment you make in this thread and would seem to be the foundation for your support of the WRP, I assume you know what the metrics actually are and would gladly share them with us.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The number one reason I'm against the DaniDollars is that they are a waste. A good portion of that money will never stay in this province, which I think makes it wasteful.

That is such an extreme oversimplification. If anything, the individual dividend is going to go into local businesses (even if Walmart or whatever) that employ Joe Albertan. It's going to go into the next trip to the farmers' market. It's going to get your hair cut. It's going to cover the bill at your favorite restaurant. It's going to buy you a case a beer and box of popcorn. It's going to get your kids some new soccer cleats.

What do you think is going to happen? We're all going to invest $300 in American companies or Chinese real estate ventures or what?

[GP_Matt]

I think Senator found a 19th century economics book and is using that for the basis of his arguments. He is taking trade protectionism to a whole new level.

[Senator Clay Davis]

But Wal-Marts profits don't stay here, they go to their corporate offices based in Missassauga. The argument that it goes to employees is unbeliveably false because those people are employed already. Unless the dividend cheque spending creates jobs (lol) the only things staying in this province are items purchased at 100% local places. Hell even 5% of the dividend cheques go the the Feds if GST costed items are purchased.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Sigh....This oil money is gonna last forever everyone! Lets just throw it all away while we can!

This is one time, one use money. Investing it into projects that many people in this province will enjoy is worse than letting everyone do whatever the hell they want? Again this isn't your money your spending, its royalty money we'll never see again. When its gone, its gone. So if you give away 20% of royalty surplus, and of that 16 of that 20% never stays in the province, its like a handout to other provinces and countries. Isn't that substantially worse than investing it here?

That's awesome! The gov't will tell you what you will enjoy - don't even think of doing what you want!

And when we've built all these wonderful gov't-mandated Enjoyment Centres or superhighways to nowhere-of-consequence or schools for every neighborhood or whatever the gov't decides that "many in this province will enjoy", by what means do we operate and maintain these since it's all "one time, one use money"?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Government investing in infrastructure is telling us what to do? Question for you: Do you like Hospitals? Schools? Roadways? Transit? Yes? I'm guessing you were cool then when the government "told" you what to do.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Government investing in infrastructure is telling us what to do? Question for you: Do you like Hospitals? Schools? Roadways? Transit? Yes? I'm guessing you were cool then when the government "told" you what to do.

Read the sentence you wrote that I bolded.

[Senator Clay Davis]

So every single project this province approves has to result in benefit for 100% of people? Thats the only way we can build things? Highway 63 to Fort Mac is perfect example. Most dangerous highway in this province, should have been twinned years ago. Not all that many people will enjoy that road, but hey the people that do have a lower chance of dying. Boy that sure sucks!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

So every single project this province approves has to result in benefit for 100% of people? Thats the only way we can build things? Highway 63 to Fort Mac is perfect example. Most dangerous highway in this province, should have been twinned years ago. Not all that many people will enjoy that road, but hey the people that do have a lower chance of dying. Boy that sure sucks!

Settle down. There are "needs" and "wants". If you intended to discuss infrastucture needs / requirements, then say as much. Don't use terminology like "things people will enjoy" and then use hospitals and overused highways as examples. Things people enjoy falls into the "wants" category and that's where I'd be concerned about gov't having unplanned windfalls.

Someone else stated already that if you truly need additional infrastructure, you plan for it from known revenues rather than waiting for unexpected resource revenue surpluses.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Settle down. There are "needs" and "wants". If you intended to discuss infrastucture needs / requirements, then say as much. Don't use terminology like "things people will enjoy" and then use hospitals and overused highways as examples. Things people enjoy falls into the "wants" category and that's where I'd be concerned about gov't having unplanned windfalls.

Someone else stated already that if you truly need additional infrastructure, you plan for it from known revenues rather than waiting for unexpected resource revenue surpluses.

Bahaha. So the following are wants, and not needs, based off that line of thinking:

Food
Water
Shelter
Clothing

I enjoy all of these things, but apparently they're wants and not needs. Maybe I should just ditch my wants of food and water and see how that works out for me

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

But Wal-Marts profits don't stay here, they go to their corporate offices based in Missassauga. The argument that it goes to employees is unbeliveably false because those people are employed already.

Employment is not guaranteed for eternity. Customers keep people employed. No customers means no business means no employees.

Your arguments are getting silly. Why don't you argue every business operating in Alberta, but not headquartered in Alberta, is ruining the province while you're at it?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Bahaha. So the following are wants, and not needs, based off that line of thinking:

Food
Water
Shelter
Clothing

I enjoy all of these things, but apparently they're wants and not needs. Maybe I should just ditch my wants of food and water and see how that works out for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%...archy_of_needs

[Senator Clay Davis]

Are you kidding me? Are you saying without dividend cheques people are going to lose their job?!?!?!?!

Thanks for the Maslow by the way. I'm guessing I know more about Maslow than you (not bragging, did 2 leadership classes where the topic was covered extensively). People's basic 3 needs (Safety, Social, Psysiological) are different to some than to others. Sadly to some an IPad is a social need.

[GP_Matt]

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Are you kidding me? Are you saying without dividend cheques people are going to lose their job?!?!?!?!

Thanks for the Maslow by the way. I'm guessing I know more about Maslow than you (not bragging, did 2 leadership classes where the topic was covered extensively). People's basic 3 needs (Safety, Social, Psysiological) are different to some than to others. Sadly to some an IPad is a social need.

Well, you're probably as shocked as I am that I had to explain needs versus wants to you, then. Plus your "not bragging" does little for your credibility.