Alberta PC's way out front

[Jacks]

Oops, had someone standing in my office when I was typing that

It's not like you could confuse her with a Daniel.

[First Lady]

This....

Feb 6

Originally Posted by 4X4

As of today, my vote is going to the Liberals.

Feb 9

Originally Posted by 4X4

Lol. Listening to raj getting interviewed on qr right now. He really did become a liberal. <snip> Ugh. No way I can vote for this guy.

... illustrates exactly why polls can vary widely and why election day may not reflect the polls.

A lot can happen before voting day.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Steady Eddy was doom and gloom but he was, I never though I would say this, 10 times more conservative than Redford ever will be. Bad news for the Grits and NDP, who needs them when sweet Allison is doing a bang up job giving out money to the poor and old left right and centre.

You forgot to add in the sick. What a horrible concept.

I am happy with this budget. Yes I have concerns about long term sustainability, but the PC's have never done that. It's hack and slash too far, and then overspend, rinse and repeat.

In a province as wealthy as ours, there is no need to strip it to the bone like the WRA wants. Will it make you feel better when your on a stretcher in a hospital hallway due to cut backs that the sustainability fund is larger than ever? Or when your parents eventually become old, and their support payments are cut, forcing them to cut back to two meals a day? But hey, the budget is more balanced than ever!

There is a difference between the NDP and Liberals. NDP are the hand out party to bloated unions. Low skilled workers that demand premium benefits. Social Liberals, like myself view government as pro-business, with help to the disadvantaged in society. There is nothing wrong with that.

Strict conservatism is all fine and good, while you are a young, happy, healthy adult, with a paying job. As soon as you lose one of these benefits, and you will, you'll be bemoaning the fact that there is no help for you to get back on your feet.

I for one am happy that the government is addressing the people that need the help the most in society. Even if it may mean more personal for me, and corporate tax for my business.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

In a province as wealthy as ours, there is no need to strip it to the bone like the WRA wants. Will it make you feel better when your on a stretcher in a hospital hallway due to cut backs that the sustainability fund is larger than ever? Or when your parents eventually become old, and their support payments are cut, forcing them to cut back to two meals a day? But hey, the budget is more balanced than ever!

Talk about fear mongering.

Please explain how the WRA is planning to leave people in hospital hallways or how they are going to starve old people.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Talk about fear mongering.

Please explain how the WRA is planning to leave people in hospital hallways or how they are going to starve old people.

There are already people waiting in hospital hallways.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

You forgot to add in the sick. What a horrible concept.

I am happy with this budget. Yes I have concerns about long term sustainability, but the PC's have never done that. It's hack and slash too far, and then overspend, rinse and repeat.

In a province as wealthy as ours, there is no need to strip it to the bone like the WRA wants. Will it make you feel better when your on a stretcher in a hospital hallway due to cut backs that the sustainability fund is larger than ever? Or when your parents eventually become old, and their support payments are cut, forcing them to cut back to two meals a day? But hey, the budget is more balanced than ever!

There is a difference between the NDP and Liberals. NDP are the hand out party to bloated unions. Low skilled workers that demand premium benefits. Social Liberals, like myself view government as pro-business, with help to the disadvantaged in society. There is nothing wrong with that.

Strict conservatism is all fine and good, while you are a young, happy, healthy adult, with a paying job. As soon as you lose one of these benefits, and you will, you'll be bemoaning the fact that there is no help for you to get back on your feet.

I for one am happy that the government is addressing the people that need the help the most in society. Even if it may mean more personal for me, and corporate tax for my business.

Ignoring the facts that we spend almost double of most provinces in the country, and much much more than our closest neighbors, you must really believe places like British Columbia and Ontario are hell where the poor are shovelled into mass graves?

Back in reality, we need to get our spending under control and based upon realism instead of constantly pretending increases in spending improve service or deliverability of anything.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Press release with highlights of Wildrose Alternative Budget

http://www.wildrose.ca/feature/news-...t-alternative/

More detailed .pdf

http://www.wildrosecaucus.ca/media/2...ative-2012.pdf

Hilarious! I read the document and it doesn't actually detail anything. Basically its a document that says "we can fix everything, not raise taxes and show a surplus." Oh OK.

I note that one major cut (from the emergency fund) is worth $400M alone. So while the Wildrose can balance the budget, its hardly impressive. You cut $400M here and suddenly the deficit that Redford announced is cut in half. Except that having $500M in an emergency fund is both prudent and necessary!

This shows all you need to know about the Wildrose not actually being anywhere near ready for government though. Their budget comes in at a growth of about 0.05% lower than what the Tories suggest...which is essentially nothing. But heres where you know they are grasping at straws: they compare spending per capita with other provinces and we all know that is completely meaningless. Its the old trick of using a statistic that might appear relevant that really isn't. So what if BC, Saskatchewan and Ontario spend less per capita than what you propose? I note that the Wildrose also intends to spend far more than the current government of Burkina Faso.

Some other gems:

- "implement zero based budgeting immediately and identify hundreds of millions through in-year savings". Uh, OK. I guess they will also "create efficiencies"?

- a couple of charts that totally make a mockery of their arguements. The first is showing government royalty revenues, which were pounded in 2009-2010 and are better, but not as good in 2010-2011. Then the next chart shows the sustainability fund (for a rainy day) which peaked ahead of this enormous drop, and they project to continue dropping. First of all thats the point of the fund, right? Recession hits and you have this fund to help supplement reduced revenue. Secondly, nice work on the projections, despite the projections for increased revenue from your own chart.

- Figure 7 is really my favorite though. Remember how we had reletively severe cuts through the 1990s and we faced an infrastructure and service deficit as a result? Well the WRA has conveniently left off most of that in this chart. Instead they pick up at the tail end of reduced spending to try to demonstrate that the PC's have over spent through the 2000's on a per capita basis compared to the rest of Canada. Again, not only is the per capita number irrelevant, but its also misleading. Its misleading because the government absolutely had to invest in infrastructure and services following the severe cuts. We had a fast growing population and were already behind in these areas. Factor in explosive growth and spending had to be done, its just a shame that none had been done earlier in the cycle!

Overall, its a lot of fluff though. Most of the ideas that are actually relevant are the same as what Redford announced yesterday (hiring teachers, nurses and police officers being the largest similarities). Piggybacking things like cutting the communications and saving a whopping $7 million is really a complete who cares line item. $7 million out of a $40B budget? Wow, way to keep your eye on the ball.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hilarious! I read the document and ACCORDING TO THE PC's it doesn't actually detail anything. Basically its a document that says "we can fix everything, not raise taxes and show a surplus." Oh OK.

I note that one major cut (from the emergency fund) is worth $400M alone. So while the Wildrose can balance the budget, its hardly impressive. You cut $400M here and suddenly the deficit that Redford announced is cut in half. Except that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S having $500M in an emergency fund is both prudent and necessary !

This ACCORDING TO THE PC'S shows all you need to know about the Wildrose not actually being anywhere near ready for government though. Their budget comes in at a growth of about 0.05% lower than what the Tories suggest...which is essentially nothing. But heres where you know they are grasping at straws: they compare spending per capita with other provinces and we all know that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S is completely meaningless. Its the old trick of using a statistic that might appear relevant that really isn't. So what if BC, Saskatchewan and Ontario spend less per capita than what you propose? I note that ACCORDING TO THE PC'S the Wildrose also intends to spend far more than the current government of Burkina Faso.

Some other gems:

- "implement zero based budgeting immediately and identify hundreds of millions through in-year savings". Uh, OK. I guess they will also "create efficiencies"? ACCORDING TO THE PC'S this won't work.

- a couple of charts that totally make a mockery of their arguements. The first is showing government royalty revenues, which were pounded in 2009-2010 and are better, but not as good in 2010-2011. Then the next chart shows the sustainability fund (for a rainy day) which peaked ahead of this enormous drop, and they project to continue dropping. First of all ACCORDING TO THE PC'S thats the point of the fund, right? Recession hits and you have this fund to help supplement reduced revenue. Secondly, nice work on the projections, despite the projections for increased revenue from your own chart.

- Figure 7 is really my favorite though. Remember how we had reletively severe cuts through the 1990s and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S we faced an infrastructure and service deficit as a result? Well the WRA has conveniently left off most of that in this chart. Instead they pick up at the tail end of reduced spending to try to demonstrate that the PC's have over spent through the 2000's on a per capita basis compared to the rest of Canada. Again, not only ACCORDING TO THE PC'S is the per capita number irrelevant, but its also misleading. Its misleading because ACCORDING TO THE PC'S the government absolutely had to invest in infrastructure and services following the severe cuts. We had a fast growing population and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S were already behind in these areas. Factor in explosive growth and ACCORDING TO THE PC'S spending had to be done, its just a shame that none had been done earlier in the cycle!

Overall, its a lot of fluff though. Most of the ideas that are actually relevant are the same as what Redford announced yesterday (hiring teachers, nurses and police officers being the largest similarities). Piggybacking things like cutting the communications and saving a whopping $7 million is really a complete who cares line item. $7 million out of a $40B budget? Wow, way to keep your eye on the ball.

FYP for those wondering where all the huge assumptions came from!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

FYP for those wondering where all the huge assumptions came from!

Its even more hilarious because I'm not a PC.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its even more hilarious because I'm not a PC.

That's just it. We can no longer differentiate the PC's from Liberal from NDP... okay maybe we can still tell who the ND's are.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

You forgot to add in the sick. What a horrible concept.

I am happy with this budget. Yes I have concerns about long term sustainability, but the PC's have never done that. It's hack and slash too far, and then overspend, rinse and repeat.

In a province as wealthy as ours, there is no need to strip it to the bone like the WRA wants. Will it make you feel better when your on a stretcher in a hospital hallway due to cut backs that the sustainability fund is larger than ever? Or when your parents eventually become old, and their support payments are cut, forcing them to cut back to two meals a day? But hey, the budget is more balanced than ever!

There is a difference between the NDP and Liberals. NDP are the hand out party to bloated unions. Low skilled workers that demand premium benefits. Social Liberals, like myself view government as pro-business, with help to the disadvantaged in society. There is nothing wrong with that.

Strict conservatism is all fine and good, while you are a young, happy, healthy adult, with a paying job. As soon as you lose one of these benefits, and you will, you'll be bemoaning the fact that there is no help for you to get back on your feet.

I for one am happy that the government is addressing the people that need the help the most in society. Even if it may mean more personal for me, and corporate tax for my business.

Pretty interesting that you think the government needs to spend a record amount of money to provide basic services, including health care to its citizens.

Have they ever attempted to review the social programs that they're spending billions on to make sure they actually work like they intend? Or is it just easier to spend the money because you have it, and worry about actually doing their job, which includes being fiscally responsible, later when the money is all gone and we're left with nothing in the bank, and a deficit we can't control.

Simply spending more and more and more and more isn't the solution to anything. All it does is buy votes, and you're fallen for that ploy hook, line and sinker.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by First Lady

That's just it. We can no longer differentiate the PC's from Liberal from NDP... okay maybe we can still tell who the ND's are.

So the best you can do when I point out these issues with this "budget" (your word, not mine) is say that a supporter of another party leveled that criticism? Thats pretty weak.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are already people waiting in hospital hallways.

And that is happening WHILE Alberta is spending a frickin' hell of a lot more on services than most other provinces.

But no, lets bury our head in the sand and pretend like this problem of bloated government will go away.

Are Albertans getting fair value for the money they spend on social services? There is no doubt that they're not. Is anyone going to fix it? No, they're not even going to attempt it.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

So the best you can do when I point out these issues with this "budget" (your word, not mine) is say that a supporter of another party leveled that criticism? Thats pretty weak.

It's not weak at all. The point is that the PC's/Liberals/NDP all offer pretty much the same viewpoint: Spending more money is the only way to ever cure anything. We didn't spend enough in the past, and thus should increase spending more than we otherwise would have. And comparing our spending to other very similar jurisdictions doesnt make sense because we need to spend more. And we can't worry about future debt problems because we need to spend more now.

Kind of sad, really.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Azure

Are Albertans getting fair value for the money they spend on social services? .

Fair value? Didn't you just read what Slava said? There's no point in finding fair value we need to spend more.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's not weak at all. The point is that the PC's/Liberals/NDP all offer pretty much the same viewpoint: Spending more money is the only way to ever cure anything. We didn't spend enough in the past, and thus should increase spending more than we otherwise would have. And comparing our spending to other very similar jurisdictions doesnt make sense because we need to spend more. And we can't worry about future debt problems because we need to spend more now.

Kind of sad, really.

On top of that, they love to accuse anyone who wants to be fiscally responsible as wanting to cut services to the bone, when in fact nobody has EVER said anything about that.

From what I've read the WRA is more interested in making sure health care is being delivered in an efficient manner, rather than spending more, more, more hoping to get better results.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, thinking you'll get different results. And that is exactly what the PCs are doing. Spend more, more, more, thinking the results will be different.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

It's not weak at all. The point is that the PC's/Liberals/NDP all offer pretty much the same viewpoint: Spending more money is the only way to ever cure anything. We didn't spend enough in the past, and thus should increase spending more than we otherwise would have. And comparing our spending to other very similar jurisdictions doesnt make sense because we need to spend more. And we can't worry about future debt problems because we need to spend more now.

Kind of sad, really.

Are you forgetting that the WRA also plans to spend more money?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Fair value? Didn't you just read what Slava said? There's no point in finding fair value we need to spend more.

Yeah, plus we shouldn't worry about the deficit. Its not a big deal. Alberta is just pissing away money that should be saved in the name of 'we need better social services.'

Spending more should ALWAYS be in line with MORE taxes. Not the other way around.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Slava

So the best you can do when I point out these issues with this "budget" (your word, not mine) is say that a supporter of another party leveled that criticism? Thats pretty weak.

Yup. Sorry, been a long week. That's all I can muster.

[SebC]

Where are the Keynesians in this province? Do they exist? Alberta Party?