Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:12 PM
AndrewM AndrewM is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 2,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
AGAIN: He's racking up debt faster than the previous government. Please explain to me how this is supposed to be an improvement.
He just came out with his budget! Can’t count the NDP debt as his.
  #32  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:17 PM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewM View Post
He just came out with his budget! Can’t count the NDP debt as his.
Yes, that's correct. He just came out with his budget, and it includes a projected deficit of 8.7 billion dollars for the fiscal year ending March 31st, whereas the NDP's 2018-19 deficit was 6.7 billion. What is so difficult about this?
  #33  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:21 PM
AndrewM AndrewM is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 2,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Yes, that's correct. He just came out with his budget, and it includes a projected deficit of 8.7 billion dollars for the fiscal year ending March 31st, whereas the NDP's 2018-19 deficit was 6.7 billion. What is so difficult about this?
So they continue the NDP policies and spending for 8 months yet are supposed to cut costs? Sounds like they took their time to make sure they did it right!
  #34  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:41 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
AGAIN: He's racking up debt faster than the previous government. Please explain to me how this is supposed to be an improvement.
Last line in my posts says it “Too early to make judgment”
  #35  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:48 PM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoky buck View Post
Last line in my posts says it “Too early to make judgment”
Would you have given the NDP the same benefit of the doubt under similar circumstances?
  #36  
Old 10-30-2019, 07:54 PM
AndrewM AndrewM is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 2,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Would you have given the NDP the same benefit of the doubt under similar circumstances?
Does the Federal Liberal debt accumulation for the year get erased because they got elected to form a new government?
  #37  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:13 PM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewM View Post
Does the Federal Liberal debt accumulation for the year get erased because they got elected to form a new government?
Certainly not, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I actually never referred to accumulated debt in this thread. I've only been talking about the amount of debt being added, ie. the deficit.
  #38  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:14 PM
AndrewM AndrewM is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 2,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Certainly not, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I actually never referred to accumulated debt in this thread. I've only been talking about the amount of debt being added, ie. the deficit.


The deficit this year includes what the NDP had planned to spend from March until November. UCP just came out with their budget. Not complicated at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #39  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:17 PM
Flatlandliver's Avatar
Flatlandliver Flatlandliver is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewM View Post
He just came out with his budget! Can’t count the NDP debt as his.
And you couldn’t count the PC debt as the NDP’s then?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg AB048A0B-058D-4EEF-913F-518880B8AA23.jpg (31.6 KB, 106 views)
  #40  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:22 PM
AndrewM AndrewM is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NW Calgary
Posts: 2,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatlandliver View Post
And you couldn’t count the PC debt as the NDP’s then?


So around 20-30 billion for the NDP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #41  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:29 PM
Smoky buck Smoky buck is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 7,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Would you have given the NDP the same benefit of the doubt under similar circumstances?
If NDP were running the same platform as Kenny its possible
  #42  
Old 10-30-2019, 08:41 PM
RandyBoBandy RandyBoBandy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: YEG
Posts: 9,981
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malarkey View Post

He won't do anything to curb the massive immigration or social welfare programs or bloated government in general that is destroying the middle class.

Reducing tax on business .
First off Kenney can do ZERO about massive immigration that is Federal aka Sparkle Socks.
Can anyone in here explain to me to BIG tax cuts Kenney has given Big Business?? I keep reading on social media on how Alberta big business' get huge tax breaks? I'm a dum-dum..show me (the last sentence isn't aimed at you Malarky)
  #43  
Old 10-30-2019, 09:14 PM
YYC338 YYC338 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
AGAIN: He's racking up debt faster than the previous government. Please explain to me how this is supposed to be an improvement.
The budget deficit increase of which you speak is for the current fiscal year. In other words it reflects much of the handy work of the previous government.

The current government hadn't tabled a budget until just recently and in it they project a deficit of $5.9B for next year which is lower than the great NDP's performance of $6.7B in 2018.

The current governments policies reflected in their recent budget have yet to really come into effect.

Blaming the current government for the current fiscal year performance is playing fast and loose with the facts at best, and could be considered outright dishonest by those who really understand what's going on in this province.

What budget and program spending was Alberta operating under this year until the budget was introduced this month. I'll give you three guesses. Never mind I'll make the 3 guesses for you.
1.N, 2.D, 3.P.
  #44  
Old 10-30-2019, 11:55 PM
fishnguy fishnguy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 3,658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YYC338 View Post
By the way, is the deficit higher because of reckless spending or declining revenues from the oil industry and an economy in general that's been in the toilet since the NDP (not NPD) took office?
This is unfair. And no, I didn’t vote NDP in or voted for Trudeau. Things started going downhill in the third or fourth quarter of 2013 and the **** hit the fan outright in 2014. Has nothing to do with NDP, nada. In my honest opinion, the economy would be in the toilet regardless of the party in power. And with due respect, to state otherwise is either silly or simply dishonest. Furthermore, looking at the budget that was recently released, we would be much deeper down the drain had this government taken office then. The latter part is speculation on my part, yes, but it is an educated one.

What do I think of the current government? I am disappointed. Looks like there are some blind cuts being made without any consideration for the future. I think uninspired, dull (as in not at all inspirational), and very shortsighted people are running the show. I haven’t seen or heard anything about looking into the future. First half of post 6 and what jstubbs said in post 8 are on point.

Also, do we have a shortage of people with trade skills in this province? Why would we spend millions on trades training and cut infrastructure projects that provide jobs for these very people at the same time? Kind of boggles my mind. While we are at it, we are going to increase the cost of secondary and post secondary schooling. I read in one of the threads a few days ago that people with IT skills are in demand. Anyway...

Cutting wages of public workers is also not very far fetching. I don’t work in public sector. However, my wife and my sister do. My wife is a mental health therapist for child and youth. Except for this past Monday, I don’t remember the last time she came back home on time. No, she is not cheating on me, lol. She doesn’t get paid for the extra hours she spends at work. Add to this the **** she has to deal with on daily basis, she is definitely not overpaid. My sister is a nurse practitioner working at least (and “at least” is highlighted in a very very bright colour) 10 hours a day while getting paid for only 8 of those hours (maybe 7.5 but I am not sure). They both spent at least 6-7 years of their lives in school after high school. My wife was working for two or three years two part time jobs that paid $18 to $20 per hour after she was done with her schooling (the latter is a stretch because she still pays significant amount of money out of our pocket every year to further develop her skills in order to be most beneficial to her clientele). And I’ll tell you, stuff she has to deal with... Anyway, I feel like this belongs in the other thread about cutting public sector wages.

As for the cut, cut, cut, well. There are expenses and there are investments. It appears that the current government is indiscriminate between the two.

I will also say that everyone seems to conveniently avoid the little diagram posted by Flatlandliver, which is this:



Lastly, to answer RandyBoBandy‘s question, I will quote myself from the other thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTailAB View Post
Hey maybe now some provincial employees will feel the pain that the private guys do.

Isn't it like every 1% or 2% public sector raise equals 270,000,000 bucks that tax payers have to pick up.

Suck it up, tough times for all.
Lol.

CBC: Why Alberta's corporate tax cut might not keep investment at home

Quote:
A prime example is Husky Energy, which saw a $233-million benefit from the Alberta tax cut in its second-quarter results.
That’s just before letting hundreds of people go. But yes, take it from the public workers, education, health care, infrastructure, etc and give it to Husky, et al. There went your “suck it up”. That’s just one company and that’s just the second quarter results. 1-2% cut to public sector paid almost entirely for it (that’s your number, I don’t actually know how much 1-2% of public sector is). Either way, that’s $230 mil taxpayers have to pick up. But this one is ok, right, because it bring all the jobs.

CBC: 'It's the smart thing to do': Canadian oil driller moves all its rigs to the U.S.

Quote:
The best pieces of equipment seem to be the first to leave Canada.

"Those are the best drilling technology in the world," Mark Scholz, president of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, said of the newer rigs.

"Those rigs are gone. I don't anticipate they will come back."

The modern rigs can cost more than $25 million and the financial returns in Western Canada aren't high enough, he said.

There are many reasons why drillers are moving rigs to the U.S., said Scholz, including the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar, which is about 30 per cent higher than the loonie. The day rates for drilling rigs are also about 30 per cent better in the U.S.

Crews can work year-round in the southern U.S. and the regulatory environment is less burdensome, he said.

In 2014, before the oil price crash, there were about 900 drilling rigs in Western Canada. Now, there are about 550. Since only about half of those are currently active, Scholz expects more of them will be sent to the U.S.

As the best equipment leaves the country, the Canadian oilpatch could become less efficient, said Hoffarth, since "It takes longer to drill those wells now because you're doing it with a tier-two or tier-three rig."

Citadel Drilling still has a shop and equipment yard in Nisku, just south of Edmonton, although the property is largely empty.

The company may leave Alberta altogether, but at least for now, Hoffarth said he will keep its headquarters in Calgary.

"At this point, yes."
Yep.
  #45  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:50 AM
YYC338 YYC338 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnguy View Post
This is unfair. And no, I didn’t vote NDP in or voted for Trudeau. Things started going downhill in the third or fourth quarter of 2013 and the **** hit the fan outright in 2014. Has nothing to do with NDP, nada. In my honest opinion, the economy would be in the toilet regardless of the party in power. And with due respect, to state otherwise is either silly or simply dishonest. Furthermore, looking at the budget that was recently released, we would be much deeper down the drain had this government taken office then. The latter part is speculation on my part, yes, but it is an educated one.
Yes, oil prices started to decline in 2014, layoffs in Alberta's oil industry peaked in 2015 & 2016. People out of work don't pay much in income tax and combined with declining oil royalties, government revenues were in serious decline.

The sensible thing to do for the government of the day in 2015 & 16 would be to recognize this and control spending. What did the government of the day due instead? Well they continued to spend like drunken sailors and made a bad problem much worse by their irresponsible fiscal control.

To say the provinces problems had nothing (nada in your words ) to do with the NDP is false. While they couldn't be responsible for the downturn in the oil industry and declining revenue, they had total control of the other side of the balance sheet, expenses and spending.

Studies have shown that if the NDP government had exercised prudent fiscal control and stayed the course of their 2015 budget with respect to spending the provinces financial picture would look much different today.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/stud...t-still-so-big

They didn't and that's one of the main reasons they were a one term government.

Again, I'll ask the same question I asked earlier in this thread. How long is it reasonable to accept government spending that exceeds their revenue, regardless of the party in power?

Every single government that has brought forward a deficit budget has said the same thing you said. Were not spending, we're investing in the provinces future.

I've got news for you. Repeated continuous spending beyond your means is not investing in the future, it's mortgaging it. Both your future and for the generations that follow. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see the obvious.

Show me one provincial or federal government in the history of this country that's successfully been able to spend it's way into fiscal prosperity from a similarly dire deficit and debt situation this province is in.

In the words of Ralf Klein, "It's the spending stupid".

Last edited by YYC338; 10-31-2019 at 01:03 AM.
  #46  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:57 AM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishnguy View Post
This is unfair. And no, I didn’t vote NDP in or voted for Trudeau. Things started going downhill in the third or fourth quarter of 2013 and the **** hit the fan outright in 2014. Has nothing to do with NDP, nada. In my honest opinion, the economy would be in the toilet regardless of the party in power. And with due respect, to state otherwise is either silly or simply dishonest. Furthermore, looking at the budget that was recently released, we would be much deeper down the drain had this government taken office then. The latter part is speculation on my part, yes, but it is an educated one
I would agree with you had Sask not seen a little boom in the same terrible oil market. That is because of the Notley taxes and carbon taxes; we saw billions and billions of dollars and CAPex walk out of Alberta right into Sask. Things weren’t great, but they definitely got worse because of the NDP. (I speak from within the O&G sector and its suppliers) All of those projects are what directly and indirectly fund all of the things within the budget that were cut. Notley cut jobs and investment in AB, Kenny had to reign in the spending.

If you make $1,000,000 a year you can eat lobster every night. If you lose said job and end up working at MAC’s on minimum wage you might have to forego a lobster or two. Have yourself some ichiban noodles. Well, it’s time Albertans get used to a few feeds of ichiban.
  #47  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:09 AM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YYC338 View Post
The sensible thing to do for the government of the day in 2015 & 16 would be to recognize this and control spending. What did the government of the day due instead? Well they continued to spend like drunken sailors and made a bad problem much worse by their irresponsible fiscal control.

Again, I'll ask the same question I asked earlier in this thread. How long is it reasonable to accept government spending that exceeds their revenue, regardless of the party in power?
Actually, what you describe would have been the exact opposite of the sensible thing to do. There is a time for deficit spending, and that time is during an economic recession. And that's not me talking, that's the conventional wisdom among mainstream economists. The last thing you want to do during bad economic times is cut spending, since government spending is an economic stimulus, and cuts have the opposite effect.

As for your question, I would answer it with my previous paragraph. It is reasonable to expect a government to spend more than it takes in for as long as it takes to complete an economic recovery, within certain debt-to-gdp ratio limits, and we are well within those. This assumes, of course, that during fat times, a corresponding surplus is run, and, as we can see in flatlandliver's graph, the PC government failed to do this in the years preceding the crash when oil was very high.

The UCP obsession with balancing the budget was never grounded in any sound economic theory. It was always a political play to win votes, and to justify the measures they'll be taking as part of a long-term plan to dismantle government on behalf of corporations.
  #48  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:31 AM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
It was always a political play to win votes, and to justify the measures they'll be taking as part of a long-term plan to dismantle government on behalf of corporations.
This is a good thing. The government can’t do anything right, or efficiently. Why do you want them controlling your life? The smaller the government the better. The only way you could disagree is if your defined benefit pension was on the line.

Also in flatlanddivers chart it looks like the PCs erased as much or more debt than they ever accrued. If you don’t count those Redford liberals, the eradicated lots of debt.
  #49  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:43 AM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMOA View Post
This is a good thing. The government can’t do anything right, or efficiently. Why do you want them controlling your life? The smaller the government the better. The only way you could disagree is if your defined benefit pension was on the line.
No, it is absolutely not a good thing. More right-wing talking points, provided by the same scumbags who push the deficit paranoia, and for the same reason! There are many things that ONLY the government can provide, and others which it provides much more efficiently than the private sector. I do not have a pension on the line as you suggest, and no, I don't want them controlling my life. I do, however, want to be able to send my kid to a school where he can get a proper education, without having to pay exorbitant private school tuition, and without him being one of 40 in the class. I also want access to quality health care. We can't have these things without government taxing and spending. I think it would be great if you and people who share your views could spend some time living in the government-free utopia you advocate. You'd be begging to come back to civilization in a jiffy.
  #50  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:47 AM
teberle teberle is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMOA View Post
Also in flatlanddivers chart it looks like the PCs erased as much or more debt than they ever accrued. If you don’t count those Redford liberals, the eradicated lots of debt.
If we want to have a serious conversation about the historical context of our current fiscal situation, we unfortunately do have to 'count those Redford liberals.'
  #51  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:53 AM
YYC338 YYC338 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
Actually, what you describe would have been the exact opposite of the sensible thing to do. There is a time for deficit spending, and that time is during an economic recession. And that's not me talking, that's the conventional wisdom among mainstream economists. The last thing you want to do during bad economic times is cut spending, since government spending is an economic stimulus, and cuts have the opposite effect.

As for your question, I would answer it with my previous paragraph. It is reasonable to expect a government to spend more than it takes in for as long as it takes to complete an economic recovery, within certain debt-to-gdp ratio limits, and we are well within those. This assumes, of course, that during fat times, a corresponding surplus is run, and, as we can see in flatlandliver's graph, the PC government failed to do this in the years preceding the crash when oil was very high.

The UCP obsession with balancing the budget was never grounded in any sound economic theory. It was always a political play to win votes, and to justify the measures they'll be taking as part of a long-term plan to dismantle government on behalf of corporations.
Alberta governments have been spending beyond their means for many years, absolutely. PC governments of Redford and Stelmach were spending beyond their means and creating unrealistic expectations for taxpayer pet programs even when times were good.

Obviously there was a lot of bloat and excess created during those times. What the subsequent government has done is tack on additional spending over and above. Can anyone realistically say there is no excess spending and bloated programs in our government of today, regardless of who initiated it and who has sustained and built upon it?

If you think every tax dollar taken in is going to essential and vital services and there is no room to cut spending, I think you need to think again.

Look at Alberta's per capita spending on numerous services and programs relative to other provinces. Are we getting good value for our dollar here?

Again, show me a government that can spend it's way out of recession without the benefit of outside forces (usually to the revenue side).

During the 2008 global economic crash Canada fared better than most of it's G7 partners, was this because the federal government of the day (Harper) spent more and ran higher deficits than the rest of the G7. I think if you review past analysis it was because the government was already getting its fiscal house in order and ran only relatively small prudent deficits and stressed fiscal restraint.
  #52  
Old 10-31-2019, 02:13 AM
YYC338 YYC338 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post

The UCP obsession with balancing the budget was never grounded in any sound economic theory. It was always a political play to win votes, and to justify the measures they'll be taking as part of a long-term plan to dismantle government on behalf of corporations.
And as for this, if you don't have concrete proof of what you claim it really is just a twist on Trump's Deep State hysteria and not deserving of further response.

I thought maybe you were having a valid discussion in the real world. Now I'm just left wondering what color the sky is in your world?
  #53  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:16 AM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
If we want to have a serious conversation about the historical context of our current fiscal situation, we unfortunately do have to 'count those Redford liberals.'
According to the chart the PC’s are running a surplus. I was just pointing out that the biggest spend was when the PC party was run wolves in PC clothing.
  #54  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:26 AM
HyperMOA HyperMOA is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Edmonton (shudder)
Posts: 4,583
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
No, it is absolutely not a good thing. More right-wing talking points, provided by the same scumbags who push the deficit paranoia, and for the same reason! There are many things that ONLY the government can provide, and others which it provides much more efficiently than the private sector. I do not have a pension on the line as you suggest, and no, I don't want them controlling my life. I do, however, want to be able to send my kid to a school where he can get a proper education, without having to pay exorbitant private school tuition, and without him being one of 40 in the class. I also want access to quality health care. We can't have these things without government taxing and spending. I think it would be great if you and people who share your views could spend some time living in the government-free utopia you advocate. You'd be begging to come back to civilization in a jiffy.
I never said there should be no government. I said small government is a good thing. I agree that education is probably the most important tool it can deliver its citizens. An educated populace is a successful populace. My daughter was in a class with 47 last year with 2 teachers in it. Very good environment. It’s not a lack of teachers; it’s a lack of classrooms.

Quality healthcare does not mean the government controls it. Our healthcare is mediocre at best.

No government, will ever deliver a service more efficiently than a private counterpart. Ever.

You seem to think that I want to live in an anarchy. I want to live in a country that has a centered political ideology. Canada is so far left you think Lenin is “ALT right” compared to Stalin when in fact they are both so far left you can’t see center. I want to live in the Canada of even 20 years ago, but 50 would be better. I think you should go live in a utopia you envision; instead of dragging all of Canada into oblivion with you.
  #55  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:46 AM
The_Pale_Rider The_Pale_Rider is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: In the country, West of Edmonton
Posts: 56
Default

From the government's own website:

https://www.alberta.ca/assets/docume...ebt-issues.pdf

So from the Red PC era (Stelmach, Redford, etc) they borrowed approximately 21 billion CAD from 2005 to 2015.

4 years of Notley: 28.5 billion CAD, $965 million Australian dollars; $325 million Swiss Franc; $3.387 billion Euro; $1.05 billion British Pound; $2.5 billion Swedish Krona; $11.75 billion U.S. Dollars; $750 million South African Rand.
__________________
SASS Life Member
NFA Life Member
NRA Member
Canadian Shooting Sports Association Member Life Member
  #56  
Old 10-31-2019, 07:52 AM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default

So far I have not seen much inspiring leadership from the Kenney Govt. Just the old same old same old from what I can tell. To be honest though, I didn't expect much - Kenney still strikes me as a federally at heart.

Moe seems to have some balls though - I like the cut of his jib.
  #57  
Old 10-31-2019, 11:28 AM
JamesB JamesB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teberle View Post
No, it is absolutely not a good thing. More right-wing talking points, provided by the same scumbags who push the deficit paranoia, and for the same reason! There are many things that ONLY the government can provide, and others which it provides much more efficiently than the private sector. I do not have a pension on the line as you suggest, and no, I don't want them controlling my life. I do, however, want to be able to send my kid to a school where he can get a proper education, without having to pay exorbitant private school tuition, and without him being one of 40 in the class. I also want access to quality health care. We can't have these things without government taxing and spending. I think it would be great if you and people who share your views could spend some time living in the government-free utopia you advocate. You'd be begging to come back to civilization in a jiffy.
You seem to be very invested in big government. There are very few things that only government can provide, and nothing they provide is done more efficiently than the private sector. If you can provide an example I would be glad to argue the point further, but really this is nonsense.
WRT education, I would rather have a lower tax burden and be able to choose an expensive private school. The NDP provided a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with public education. This province spent addition billions on the issue and managed to reduce class sizes by 1! If class size is an important metric why can it not be reduced? Yet the bureaucracy that deals with Education continues to grow at an astounding rate, use up resources that should be directed towards students and generates bureaucratic inertia that maintains the status quo. Why is it that private schools manage to have smaller class sizes?
I also want access to high quality health care, but much of what I have been forced to deal with has not been particularly good quality at all. Furthermore I am never given the option to seek alternate opinions or treatments. It is always take it or leave it. Again I would much rather have lower taxes and pick and choose my medical service provider.
  #58  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:30 PM
robbiebobbie robbiebobbie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 66
Default

Well Encana and Husky didn't change their minds.

We are land locked and it should have been thought of and the wheels in motion long before Trudeau and Notley when we had PC governments. Major Pipelines take a long time. But those governments were busy doing what? Certainly not planning ahead for the province and country. Should have been a pipeline to the east coast 25 years ago and a northern one to the west on the books by 2005 before all this consultative and environmental crap took hold.

But then my personal opinon is that we were sold to the Koch brothers among others long ago and the stall in pipelines going anywhere else was planned and executed to a T. Those pipelines would interfere with their ability to hold us hostage on price.
  #59  
Old 10-31-2019, 12:54 PM
GENINC GENINC is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
You seem to be very invested in big government. There are very few things that only government can provide, and nothing they provide is done more efficiently than the private sector. If you can provide an example I would be glad to argue the point further, but really this is nonsense.
WRT education, I would rather have a lower tax burden and be able to choose an expensive private school. The NDP provided a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with public education. This province spent addition billions on the issue and managed to reduce class sizes by 1! If class size is an important metric why can it not be reduced? Yet the bureaucracy that deals with Education continues to grow at an astounding rate, use up resources that should be directed towards students and generates bureaucratic inertia that maintains the status quo. Why is it that private schools manage to have smaller class sizes?
I also want access to high quality health care, but much of what I have been forced to deal with has not been particularly good quality at all. Furthermore I am never given the option to seek alternate opinions or treatments. It is always take it or leave it. Again I would much rather have lower taxes and pick and choose my medical service provider.
Yea about that, I am not sure where you got your sources from but there have been numerous studies and studies of those studies comparing efficiency of the private sector with the public sector, and they paint a different picture.
The largest and most notable study is the PSIRU, which concluded that there is no notable difference in efficiency of the private sector compared to the public one, and most times quite the opposite.

Some notable quotes for the ones that don't want to take the time to read it:

"The consistent conclusion: there is no evidence of greater efficiency.2 So, the best outcome one can hope for is that private-sector ownership or involvement is no worse than what the public sector provides – hardly a turn-up for the books. The largest study of the efficiency of privatized companies looked at all European companies privatized during 1980-2009. It compared their performance with companies that remained public and with their own past performance as public companies. The result? The privatized companies performed worse than those that remained public and continued to do so for up to 10 years after privatization."

"Even in the super-competitive telecoms sector, where customers have benefited from lower costs and increasing variety of services over the years, this result holds. A global survey found that ‘privatized sectors perform significantly worse’ than telecom companies remaining in state hands."

"Healthcare is where this myth is really given the lie. In the US, where healthcare spending is at its peak, with private spending on healthcare exceeding public spending, basic health outcomes are worse than in Cuba – which spends a fraction of the US amount per person in a totally public healthcare system (see table).

Myth 5 table
A 2012 report by the US Institute of Medicine was damning:

‘30 cents of every medical dollar goes to unnecessary healthcare, deceitful paperwork, fraud and other waste. The $750 billion in annual waste is more than the Pentagon budget and more than enough to care for every American who lacks health insurance… Most of the waste came from unnecessary services ($210 billion annually), excess administrative costs ($190 billion) and inefficient delivery of care ($130 billion).’2

That same year government had to step in with the Affordable Care Act (also known as ObamaCare) to try to rectify a bloated system that was clearly failing poor citizens."

Luckily most people side with evidence rather than assumptions. I mean you really don't have to be a genius to see that a private corporation will have one goal only, and that's profits at all costs and the interests of the shareholders. In most cases there is no substitute, let alone better alternatives to the public sector. For the people by the people as they say. Yes, it's not perfect and has shortfalls but everything does touched by human hands.
  #60  
Old 10-31-2019, 01:31 PM
bobtodrick bobtodrick is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,939
Default

PSIRU definitely has a pro government union agenda (PSI is involved in the movement against privatisation of public services by corporations across the world. PSI also works against tax evasion by multinational corporations and is a founding member of the International Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation.[4] PSI's pro-worker stance has put it at odds with the WTO, World Bank and IMF who predominantly promote market solutions)
Of course they are going to come to conclusions that back their mandate.
Would you blindly accept the conclusions the WTO and World Bank come to?
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.