Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 827

Thread: How should the NDP ramp up their governance?

  1. #201
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,583

    Default

    So it's either the case the NDP made promises outside their official platform or the WRP is lying:

    Wildrose health critic Drew Barnes said he's disappointed the NDP appears to have reversed itself: during the spring election campaign, he said, the NDP vowed to get rid of AHS and return to local decision-making.
    Amusing if he's just confusing the WRP electoral platform for the NDP's.

    Personally, while I think things were better in the regional model, I also think AHS needs a few years of stability rather than yet another reorganization. The biggest waste of money the last decade has been the constant reorganizing in our primary health services. For governance I prefer a well constituted board than a single administrator.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  2. #202

    Default

    ^ A good start to fact checking.

    May 4, 2015 1:03 pm Updated: May 5, 2015 11:27 am
    Alberta election 2015: Platform planks of the 4 main parties
    By Staff The Canadian Press

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1978342/al...-main-parties/


    NDP Leader Rachel Notley hammered the government in question period for creating chaos in the province’s health-care system over the last decade.

    “We’ve had boards, then we had regions, then we had bigger regions, then we had one big region, then we had a central board, then they fired the board, then they had a deputy minister, then a CEO, now they’re hiring the board again and now they’re redecentralizing the government’s centralized health-care system,” Notley said.

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...al-health-care
    Last edited by KC; 23-10-2015 at 04:42 PM.

  3. #203

    Default

    If the Conservatives are in power, just join the party or donate. If it's anyone else, have some idea what you're dealing with.

    Simple really.

  4. #204

    Default

    The NDP should be sitting down now and talking about what will happen when oil prices recover. They should set out a policy that when oil reaches a certain price the government puts aside an amount of money that can be accessed when there is a downturn. I'm not talking about The Heritage Savings Trust Fund. That should stay untouched for as long as absolutely possible.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  5. #205
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ That is what the royalty review is, ostensibly.

    What they should do is set out a plan to transition our provincial expenses completely off of oil. 100% of resource revenue should go to the heritage fund, and be invested by AIMCO or ATB, preferably in diverse Alberta industries.

    That is Norway's model. They pay for all of their expenses with taxes and user fees. All of their resource revenue goes to their savings fund, which is invested. It grows and grows, and is now over $1 trillion. That money can be used in the future should their economy collapse.

    Alberta made a big mistake getting addicted to royalties. The NDP appear to be unwilling to change that, at least for the time being.

  6. #206

    Default

    ^Big difference between Norway & Alberta. Norway does not have to live with a transfer payment scheme, Alberta does.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  7. #207

    Default

    ^bingo. If we had a huge pot of cash like Norway, our payments to Quebec (and now Ontario), via Federal taxes we pay, but don't get back in equalization like they do, would go up even more (we have essentially given Quebec via equalization more than Norways funds if we had invested it), and we will receive a lot less Federal funding- nobody would give us LRT money for example, when we have a huge pot of gold. We aren't a soverign country like Norway (who cleverly didn't join the EU because they knew they would have to share then, like we do with the rest of Canada).
    Last edited by moahunter; 28-10-2015 at 12:58 PM.

  8. #208
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ That is what the royalty review is, ostensibly.

    What they should do is set out a plan to transition our provincial expenses completely off of oil. 100% of resource revenue should go to the heritage fund, and be invested by AIMCO or ATB, preferably in diverse Alberta industries.

    That is Norway's model. They pay for all of their expenses with taxes and user fees. All of their resource revenue goes to their savings fund, which is invested. It grows and grows, and is now over $1 trillion. That money can be used in the future should their economy collapse.

    Alberta made a big mistake getting addicted to royalties. The NDP appear to be unwilling to change that, at least for the time being.
    Norway does take roughly 4% a year out of their oil fund.

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ That is what the royalty review is, ostensibly.

    What they should do is set out a plan to transition our provincial expenses completely off of oil. 100% of resource revenue should go to the heritage fund, and be invested by AIMCO or ATB, preferably in diverse Alberta industries.

    That is Norway's model. They pay for all of their expenses with taxes and user fees. All of their resource revenue goes to their savings fund, which is invested. It grows and grows, and is now over $1 trillion. That money can be used in the future should their economy collapse.

    Alberta made a big mistake getting addicted to royalties. The NDP appear to be unwilling to change that, at least for the time being.
    Not on diverse Alberta industries. We want cash flows coming into Alberta just as oil revenues flow into Alberta. Invest in local businesses as a matter of policy and not opportunity and you'll find that this just turns horribly wrong soon or later.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^bingo. If we had a huge pot of cash like Norway, our payments to Quebec (and now Ontario), via Federal taxes we pay, but don't get back in equalization like they do, would go up even more (we have essentially given Quebec via equalization more than Norways funds if we had invested it), and we will receive a lot less Federal funding- nobody would give us LRT money for example, when we have a huge pot of gold. We aren't a soverign country like Norway (who cleverly didn't join the EU because they knew they would have to share then, like we do with the rest of Canada).
    Give every resident a locked in transferable citizen only registered, restricted withdrawal, restricted investment plan (trust). .. Or mineral rights.

  11. #211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

    Norway does take roughly 4% a year out of their oil fund.

    Did they change that? According to an August article on the change in government, policy has been to invest " 100 per cent of the government’s revenue from royalties and dividends in a fund that is barred from investing a krone in the domestic economy."

    A new centre-right party has pledged to look at tapping into more of it, but the decision remains highly contentious. They are ALLOWED to extract up to 4% per year, but that does not mean "the policy is to extract 4% per year". It is a safeguard to prevent the fund being liquidated in short periods of time. Also, the 4% is designed to match the average yearly investment increase in the fund.

    ...policy makers became “much more religious” about sticking to the target, he said. And today, it is a matter of Norwegian national pride.

    What is most surprising is that in the current state, there seems to be a general consensus that the money should be kept where it is and the rules should not be changed,” said Bruno Gerard, a professor of finance at the Norwegian Business School in Oslo. “So you don’t hear claims [outside the oil sector] that more money should be pumped into the economy ... for the current generation. The general population thinks it’s perfectly fine as it is.”
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle25973060/

    ^bingo. If we had a huge pot of cash like Norway, our payments to Quebec (and now Ontario), via Federal taxes we pay, but don't get back in equalization like they do, would go up even more (we have essentially given Quebec via equalization more than Norways funds if we had invested it), and we will receive a lot less Federal funding- nobody would give us LRT money for example, when we have a huge pot of gold. We aren't a soverign country like Norway (who cleverly didn't join the EU because they knew they would have to share then, like we do with the rest of Canada).
    Again, for the millionth time, equalization payments have absolutely zero bearing on why we don't have a sovereign wealth fund like norway. What a BS argument, it has been disproved so many times I can't believe you guys keep marching it out. The sole reason we haven't saved is that we subsidize ourselves with royalties so we can enjoy low taxes. That is the only reason, bar none.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 28-10-2015 at 01:46 PM.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Give every resident a locked in transferable citizen only registered, restricted withdrawal, restricted investment plan (trust). .. Or mineral rights.
    Or just a cheque each year - I agree that would work fine, let people do the saving for themselves, and no fund for Quebec / Feds to try to tap into by reducing transfers to Alberta / reducing spending / increasing equalization to everyone else. Or, simpler still, just don't have a sales tax (what we do).

  13. #213
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Or just a cheque each year - I agree that would work fine, let people do the saving for themselves, and no fund for Quebec / Feds to try to tap into by reducing transfers to Alberta / reducing spending / increasing equalization to everyone else.

    I take it you don't remember Bible Bill and his socreds?

  14. #214
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Did they change that? According to an August article on the change in government, policy has been to invest " 100 per cent of the government’s revenue from royalties and dividends in a fund that is barred from investing a krone in the domestic economy."

    A new centre-right party has pledged to look at tapping into more of it, but the decision remains highly contentious. They are ALLOWED to extract up to 4% per year, but that does not mean "the policy is to extract 4% per year". It is a safeguard to prevent the fund being liquidated in short periods of time. Also, the 4% is designed to match the average yearly investment increase in the fund.
    Looks like you're correct, it's not a firm 4%. It varies depending on circumstances. In any case, generally if you have a pot of money invested in a balanced mix of equities and fixed income, the rough rule of thumb of how much you can withdraw per year without eating in to the principal AND leaving it inflation proof is about 4%. That might be more like 3% these days, with really low interest rates and the like.

    From your same article:

    Under current rules, the government can withdraw no more than 4 per cent in any given year, which not coincidentally matches the fund’s expected average annual real return.

    “It’s a flexible rule. It’s not 4 per cent come whatever,” said Trond Grande, the low-key deputy chief executive officer of Norges Bank Investment Management, an arm of the central bank that manages the fund. “During the [2008] financial crisis, they went above the 4 per cent. That’s how the fund functions as a kind of stabilizer, a buffer mechanism.”

    In her first budget last October, Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg said the government would transfer 3 per cent of the value of the oil fund into its budget this year – up from 2.8 per cent in 2014 – to help cover the costs of tax cuts designed to spur growth. Now, as the official forecast of 1.3 per cent gross domestic product expansion this year and 2 per cent next year (calculated without oil and gas revenues) looks shaky, there are rumblings that the takeout could go higher.

    Right-leaning politicians in Norway have argued that the withdrawal cap should be boosted to 5 per cent to put more cash to work in the domestic economy today, while others say it should be lowered to ensure there is enough capital to meet future spending needs. All operate on the thesis that the oil will stop flowing in the next couple of decades.
    This quote shows the stupidity with which the Heritage Fund has been managed:

    Last year, the fund was valued at $17.9-billion. It generated a healthy return of 12.5 per cent, amounting to about $1.7-billion. Of that, $1.5-billion was siphoned into the government’s general revenues, with $210-million saved. Since its inception, income transfers to government have totalled $38.2-billion.
    It's a savings account where we spend the interest and don't even inflation proof it. The Heritage Fund would be 3-4 times the size it presently is, had past governments not raided it. Imagine having a 60 billion dollar fund. Drawing 4% from that would result in 2.4 billion a year in additional revenue, for perpetuity essentially.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 28-10-2015 at 02:43 PM.

  15. #215
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Now imagine if we had the same fees and taxes on petroleum firms as Norway, and had built a $300 billion fund. What would Alberta look like with a sustainable $12 billion in government revenues accessible each year we need it?

    Norway is what a country looks like when people care more about nation building and leaving a legacy for future generations than their own greed. Albertans would rather have that second truck, or a bigger yard, or a $200,000 engagement ring than leave the world a better place for their children.

    Our fellow citizens pull out every excuse in the book to avoid taking responsibility, too. Albertans would rather blame the marginal impact of equalization, or make up voodoo economics claims about business fleeing the province than accept that they squandered our resources for short-term gain.

  16. #216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Give every resident a locked in transferable citizen only registered, restricted withdrawal, restricted investment plan (trust). .. Or mineral rights.
    Or just a cheque each year - I agree that would work fine, let people do the saving for themselves, and no fund for Quebec / Feds to try to tap into by reducing transfers to Alberta / reducing spending / increasing equalization to everyone else. Or, simpler still, just don't have a sales tax (what we do).
    Ralph Bucks. Who saved that money? Or kept their Alberta Energy shares?

    People are probably pretty good at their chosen professions but they are generally poor at investing on the side. Even finance professionals tend to do poorly and 90% + of equity mutual funds don't come close to beating their respective policy benchmarks over any length of time. In the end society would still have to step in to help out the unfortunate ones that for reasons of bad investing, failing health, helping the kids, being scammed, buying crap or whatever depleted their funds.

    The only thing that really works is aggregating funds, locking them in and having objective fiduciary minded policy makers balancing any withdrawal needs with long term multi-generational objectives for the province as a whole.

  17. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Now imagine if we had the same fees and taxes on petroleum firms as Norway, and had built a $300 billion fund. What would Alberta look like with a sustainable $12 billion in government revenues accessible each year we need it?

    Norway is what a country looks like when people care more about nation building and leaving a legacy for future generations than their own greed. Albertans would rather have that second truck, or a bigger yard, or a $200,000 engagement ring than leave the world a better place for their children.

    Our fellow citizens pull out every excuse in the book to avoid taking responsibility, too. Albertans would rather blame the marginal impact of equalization, or make up voodoo economics claims about business fleeing the province than accept that they squandered our resources for short-term gain.
    It would have been interesting to see what we could have had, had we continued to save and pay any commensurate transfer payments. Somehow I think we'd be closer to Norway's financial position today than where we have actually landed today.

  18. #218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    ^nope big bad Quebec would take all our money

    Source: my ***
    be offended! figure out why later...

  19. #219

    Default

    When Alberta New Democrat Stephanie McLean has her first child early next February, she’ll be the province’s first sitting MLA to deliver a baby during her term.
    That history-making fact has sparked a series of logistical questions at the provincial legislature as the mom-to-be begins to consider the realities of having a child while juggling her responsibilities as the deputy government whip.
    “This is going to be really new territory for everyone, for the legislative assembly,” said the MLA for Calgary-Varsity.
    McLean, 28, said she intends to return to work as soon as possible after her delivery. That alone raises new questions: Does a baby need a security pass to enter the house?
    When Rachel Notley’s New Democrats swept to power, the face of Alberta’s legislature changed significantly, becoming younger and, thanks to near gender parity on the government benches, filled with more women. Those changing demographics meant considering new needs, such as child care.
    The NDP caucus has parents to 15 children under the age of 10, said Brandy Payne, MLA for Calgary-Acadia. When the opposition is included, that figure grows to 20 children. That led the NDP to begin to explore whether it’s time to create on-site child care.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...parental-leave

    What crap, "Does a baby need a security pass for the house". Geez, are these people stupid. Is this the kind of questions we are going to have them contemplate in the next session. As for day care. Let them find their own child care like the rest of the population does. Plenty of people have to juggle work with child care issues why should they get preferential treatment.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #220
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    I listened to her interview on the radio. She comes across very reasonable. Talked about the rules being behind the times. No official policy on mat leave and as an MLA not eligible for a mat leave pay (they don't pay into EI). Talked about childcare. Mentioned that it is unreasonable for government to start provide extended childcare in the house while so many shift workers do not have the same. Mentioned that her family (mom and in-laws) are from edmonton and would be looking after the child.

    Main concern for her is that having a child is not an "illness" and so she would lose pay for missed sessions. At the same time, she recognizes that rule changes may not apply to her as they would likely happen after.

    btw: the security check would be for the caregivers, not the child.

  21. #221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,583

    Default

    I think it would be quite reasonable to modify the rules on missed sessions to allow for recent maternity.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  22. #222

    Default

    I'm all for them looking into a maternity plan that is fair all round, especially for the new born. What I don't want to see is it being a costly solution that is subsidised by tax payers. Millions of people have to juggle work commitments with kids commitments. I don't want to see MLA's dragging their kids all over the place like Redford did. Your job is your job, your home life is your home life. Keep them apart.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I'm all for them looking into a maternity plan that is fair all round, especially for the new born. What I don't want to see is it being a costly solution that is subsidised by tax payers. Millions of people have to juggle work commitments with kids commitments. I don't want to see MLA's dragging their kids all over the place like Redford did. Your job is your job, your home life is your home life. Keep them apart.


    Yeah, that was bizarre.

  24. #224
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I'm all for them looking into a maternity plan that is fair all round, especially for the new born. What I don't want to see is it being a costly solution that is subsidised by tax payers. Millions of people have to juggle work commitments with kids commitments. I don't want to see MLA's dragging their kids all over the place like Redford did. Your job is your job, your home life is your home life. Keep them apart.
    Neither the NDP or McLean have suggested anything like that. All that's been raised is changing the rules around missed days and considering onsite childcare in government buildings. The latter is not common but is also not unheard of in the private sector. It doesn't necessarily mean free childcare either, just more accessible childcare.

    If I had to guess what will happen is the missed days rules will get changed and the onsite childcare will not happen. MacLean herself isn't even asking for that as she has family handling childcare for her.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I'm all for them looking into a maternity plan that is fair all round, especially for the new born. What I don't want to see is it being a costly solution that is subsidised by tax payers. Millions of people have to juggle work commitments with kids commitments. I don't want to see MLA's dragging their kids all over the place like Redford did. Your job is your job, your home life is your home life. Keep them apart.


    Yeah, that was bizarre.
    First child care, next penthouse appartments ala Redford, with room for a teenager... This is the governing left, its all about making their lives easier, screw the rest of us who aren't so fortunate re days off / having to manage these issues from our own finances (or relly on dropping the kids off at starbucks). Good luck getting a work shop in Nisku to set up a child care for you... but such is life for the choosen few who have "given to us all" by "sacrificing" to be public servants...
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-11-2015 at 11:05 AM.

  26. #226

    Default

    Yup, it will start off with a space for kids in the Ledge. Then they will realize it has to fit fire rules for youngsters, then they will need a kitchen to heat juniors foot, then there will be a need for a outside space for them to play. Do I see $ signs for modifications that will be paid for at taxpayers expense. Now, I know there are a minute amount of child care spaces in buildings where parents actually work but they are few and far between. If they have a nanny let the nanny look after babes at home, no need for the nanny and baby to go to work with you. If you want the baby to have breast milk leave a few bottles at home and take yourself and breasts to work.
    Sure let the MLA's have better maternity leave and benefits through a benefit that they pay for themselves, but let's not have to pay for anything other than that. You knew what the job entailed when you took it, now live with it.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  27. #227
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Interesting article regarding controversy over farm safety rules that has brewed the past several days:

    ...However the real villains in this whole debacle are the neo-conservatives that have long found a home in Alberta’s bureaucracy and later infested Ottawa under the Harper regime. The drafting of this legislation and communication about it was left in the hands of Alberta government bureaucrats. Now there can be little doubt they certainly bungled, and perhaps sabotaged the NDP’s efforts and created much fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the rural community as a result. Why else would they have provided such scatter-gun legislation with information about it spread across 10 wordy and almost incomprehensible fact-sheets spread across the province’s web site?

    They left the new Occupational Health and Safety Minister Lori Sigurdson and Agriculture Minister Oneil Carlier spinning in the wind on this one. So there is a lesson here for the new Liberal administration in Ottawa which is as valid today as it was in the 16th century when Niccolò Machiavelli advised a new administration to swing the ax widely when it first took power.
    http://www.cwbafacts.ca/2015/12/albe...arperfication/

  28. #228
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    information about it spread across 10 wordy and almost incomprehensible fact-sheets spread across the province’s web site?
    The state of the provincial government's website is something of a joke at this point. For all the talk about "open government" and "transparency" their site remains a labyrinth.

    There's a good way the NDP can "ramp up governance" - burn the old website to the ground and start over.

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    ThinkHQ polls showed the following support for parties;
    Wildrose 33%, NDP 29%, PC 25%, Liberals 8%, Alberta 3%

    Now Notley has 3.5 years to address some of the problems, but judging by how heavy handedly she is handling Bill 6, I doubt her popularity will improve. To me Bill 6 has some needed portions, but what would it hurt delay the bill until spring of next year and actually consult the people, rather than essentially shoving it down farmer's throats. She never had much farm support.

    What could be a problem though is Bill 8, the teacher's are part of her core supporters if she loses a good percentage of those, she will be a 1 term premier.

    It could be worse, she could be Greg Sellinger ... who has 22% support of Manitobans in the latest polls and Manitoba is having an election in April.

  30. #230

    Default

    ^its silly, there was no real reason to **** off every rural voter by doing bill 6, nobody is going to vote NDP because of this bill. Sure, they don't win a lot of those votes anyway, but even so, it doesn't hurt to listen to your electorate if you want a second term.

  31. #231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Only in Alberta is it contentious to extend basic workers rights to farm labourers.

    We are truly hickville in many regards.

  32. #232
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^its silly, there was no real reason to **** off every rural voter by doing bill 6, nobody is going to vote NDP because of this bill. Sure, they don't win a lot of those votes anyway, but even so, it doesn't hurt to listen to your electorate if you want a second term.
    First of, she did not get elected by rural voter. Secondly, extending protection to workers working in the agriculture industry may actually gain her some support from the farm hands and other labourers that this will actually protect. They are probably less organized to form rallies etc, but their numbers are big and voting is anonymous...

    I don't particularly get the communication practices of this government and they could have handled it better, but it is also entirely possible that the grumpy opposition to the bill could have been not receptive from the get go until they realized that this thing is happening.

    As for delaying until spring... You don't want to pass legislation affecting farmers during busy farm seasons. Winter is really the best time as the activity is at a minimum.

  33. #233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,583

    Default

    I think if the WRP had made moves to negotiate over the bill rather than use it as a massive wedge issue there might have been a chance of a delay. As it stands all that would have happened in waiting until spring is the WRP ramping up the attack rhetoric for even longer. By getting the bill done now the NDP remove the issue from the front lines.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  34. #234
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    This brings to mind an anecdote from many years ago, now rather ironic given the situation...

    I was visiting the Manitoba Leg. grounds during the Howard Pawley years, and came across one of those lone-wolf demonstrators who camp out with signs to protest the fact that they can't get Workers' Comp for an injury they suffered.

    This particular malcontent had two themes: First, he was mad because his claims for Workmans' Comp had been rejected. Secondly, the NDP government were a bunch of dirty socialist commies. He rambled on about the latter complaint quite extensively.

    I wonder what he'd think of the right-wingers in Alberta trying to block the NDP from giving Workers' Comp to farm hands.

  35. #235

  36. #236

    Default

    Because everybody loves the WCB. Only a government that is for the unions by the unions would force this garbage on the farmers of Alberta.

  37. #237
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    Because everybody loves the WCB. Only a government that is for the unions by the unions would force this garbage on the farmers of Alberta.
    This has been in place everywhere in canada:

    http://www.producer.com/2015/12/what...worker-safety/

    Why is alberta farm so different from, say, a farm in saskatchewan???

  38. #238

    Default

    Farmers have their own PRIVATE INSURANCE not the garbage from WCB.

    Why are there always people protesting the WCB??? A year ago Notley was complaining about the WCB, what has changed and the WCB?

    WATCH AND LEARN!!!

    http://www.therebel.media/ndp_minist...reville_bill_6

  39. #239

    Default

    Do private insurers report farm accidents to the government?. If not, they should. Maybe by going through WCB the government can get a handle on who/where/what/why workers are being injured. That way they can do something about it. Oh wait....................
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #240
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    Because everybody loves the WCB. Only a government that is for the unions by the unions would force this garbage on the farmers of Alberta.
    And whose hubby is big with the unions..
    While the family farmers were picketing, the unions were picketeung for it. That told me a lot!

  41. #241
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    edmo
    Posts
    117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    Farmers have their own PRIVATE INSURANCE not the garbage from WCB.

    Why are there always people protesting the WCB??? A year ago Notley was complaining about the WCB, what has changed and the WCB?

    WATCH AND LEARN!!!

    http://www.therebel.media/ndp_minist...reville_bill_6
    While it is far from perfect, I believe one of the distinct benefits of WCB coverage for employers is that it is no fault, unlike private insurance. That said, seems to me that reforming the WCB could be popular move for Notley.

  42. #242
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    Watch and learn???? Learn what exactly? Interesting how the side claiming that they are not being heard put up Ezra Levant's loudspeaker that deliberately cuts out any and all responses as a way to claim that the government is refusing to listen.

    I am not sure how this is credible in any way. A proper journalist would at least try to provide the responses unless the story isn't the actual bill, but that there are some angry people opposing the bill.

    By the way, I am not clear on why the Rebel chooses to describe this bill as "white collar office worker unionization bla, bla, bla" while it covers workers on industrial sites and construction sites all over the place. How is a machinist or a welder for example is a "white collar urban worker"?

    From what I see, the opposition is to the fact that the NDP is making changes, not to the changes itself. Get over it.

  43. #243

    Default

    You should go to the farmers and sell Bill 6 to them. You make really good points.

  44. #244
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtle View Post
    You should go to the farmers and sell Bill 6 to them. You make really good points.
    We have family farms, it wouldn't see us. We have dealt with WCB, and they like make you life miserable.

  45. #245

    Default

    Any bill that gets kids off machinery that is not suitable for their age group is a good bill. I don't care if that is how farm life is it's wrong to have kids doing men's work. Farms need to be regulated on safety like any other industry be it family run or not.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  46. #246
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    If using a forklift, for example, is regulated on a lumber yard (for example), then why would it not be regulated on a farm?

  47. #247
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    I don't think this bill will get kids off oif quads or forklifts. The NDP ****** off the energy sector,the farmers, and next up the teachers. I can't find too many people that say they voted for these idiots.

  48. #248
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    well, if we go down that path... the idiots pc's messed up so bad that idiots albertans voted for idiots ndps instead of voting for idiots wildrose or idiots pc's... have I missed anyone? i guess we, ***** albertans can either vote for old guard idiots or new guard ones. I prefer the new idiots to the old ones only because the new idiots are only idiots because they try to fix what the old idiots have managed to build over the last 40 years...

  49. #249
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    hahahaha everyone's an id1ot! I like it!

  50. #250
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    hahahaha everyone's an id1ot! I like it!
    Well, the idiots that only want one term are.

  51. #251
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    because the idiots who want to govern forever know that the rest of us are idiots for wanting to let them do so??? well, that's idiotic but not surprising because those idiots have governed for 40 years and new idiots may only govern for 4.

  52. #252
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    OR

    perhaps to improve the tone of conversation we should stop calling sides idiots and trust that at least some of them on both sides do actually wish to make a positive change...

  53. #253
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    because the idiots who want to govern forever know that the rest of us are idiots for wanting to let them do so??? well, that's idiotic but not surprising because those idiots have governed for 40 years and new idiots may only govern for 4.
    The Wildrose has yet to govern.

  54. #254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    hahahaha everyone's an id1ot! I like it!
    Well, the idiots that only want one term are.
    If you read that AlbertaViews article you'll see that the PCs tried to apply the regs to the farms too, I believe even promising to do so.

    From the Bill 6 thread here, plus additional quotes from the Barnetson article.
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...t=37997&page=2

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    In a post above I quoted from a very interesting article. What's not in my excepts is the mention of all the prior consultations that have taken place over the years by the PCs and the prior comitments by the PCs towards improving farm worker safety and possibly post injury recourse.

    Just skim this and note all the reverences to past work on this issue. There should be nothing surprising in this bill to the farm community.


    https://albertaviews.ab.ca/2013/04/2...afe-workplace/

    Premier Alison Redford promised protection for paid farm workers in 2011, but her Conservative caucus continues to stall.


    The 2008 fatality inquiry conducted by Judge Peter Barley recommended including farm workers within the ambit of OHS legislation. Barley’s recommendation reflects that health and safety coverage would give farm workers the right to refuse unsafe work. It would allow the province to investigate injuries and make regulations to address hazards. Had farming been subject to OHS for 10 years prior to Chandler’s death, these rights and rules may well have saved the man’s life.

    Last edited by KC; 13-12-2015 at 09:37 AM.

  55. #255

    Default

    I hear that the NDP is softening its stance on raising the minimum wage. Maybe the old theory vs practice reality is starting to hit home to those now running government. (Same issues and back peddling will likely hit for climate change regulations, economic diversification, etc. )



    Job losses a 'realistic possibility' from hiking minimum wage to $15, says government note
    James Wood, Calgary Herald
    December 15, 2015

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...overnment-note

    An alternate view of reality....



    Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage
    Warren Buffett, May 21, 2015


    "...Recently, however, the economic rewards flowing to people with specialized talents have grown dramatically faster than those going to equally decent men and women possessing more commonplace skills. In 1982, the first year the Forbes 400 was compiled, those listed had a combined net worth of $93 billion. Today, the 400 possess $2.3 trillion, up 2,400% in slightly more than three decades, a period in which the median household income rose only about 180%.

    Meanwhile, a huge number of their fellow citizens have been living the American Nightmare—behaving well and working hard but barely getting by. In 1982, 15% of Americans were living below the poverty level; in 2013 the proportion was nearly the same, a dismaying 14.5%. In recent decades, our country’s rising tide has not lifted the boats of the poor.

    ...The brutal truth is that an advanced economic system, whether it be geared to physical or mental skills, will leave a great many people behind.

    That second goal crumbles in the face of any plan to sizably increase the minimum wage. I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour. But that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.

    The better answer is ..."

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/better-t...age-1432249927



  56. #256
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    Not sure how they could claim raising the minimum wage would increase jobs ... huh how is this possible?

  57. #257
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Not sure how they could claim raising the minimum wage would increase jobs ... huh how is this possible?
    They have funny math. Its the NDP after all.

  58. #258
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    I can see that you'd have more people willing to work for minimum wage though. Perhaps they are talking about the number of people actually working vs. number of positions.

  59. #259
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Not sure how they could claim raising the minimum wage would increase jobs ... huh how is this possible?
    They have funny math. Its the NDP after all.
    regular math...

    The idea is that it would partly increase affordability of things=more consumers=more demand=more jobs down the line... this idea, however, may also lead to inflation although the amount of inflation is probably difficult to predict.

    I understand the fear that increase such as this may lead to some job losses, but I am not sure if the reality will be the same.

    I am going to make a few assumptions:
    1. Large corporations and large employers do not employ people at minimum wage rates. They will be not affected.

    2. Very few or none of medium-sized employers pay minimum wage. No job losses there either.

    3. Laborers in construction business currently work for higher than minimum wage. Very few and very unskilled will be affected.

    4. Only small restaurant type/ convenience store/ housekeeping in hotels/ babysitters and nannies employees will be affected.

    Lets examine the impact. A nanny paid $11/hr for 40 hours of work would make approximately $440 per week. The cost to employer is a bit higher due to employer contributions to CPP and EI. Let's say $500/ week. Same nanny at $15/hr for 40 hours would make now $600 per week and closer to $650 with employer share of CPP and EI. This is a $150/week change for the family or $7800 per year. This nanny may be either laid off or have her hours cut. The most likely situation is a cut in hours for status quo pay only because the alternative is one parent staying home (much bigger loss in salary than $7800) or some sort of day-care. Bad for the nanny, good for daycare who with enough new kids can hire additional staff. This may be a marginal employment loss, but not hordes of unemployed nannies...

    Restaurant/convenience store type employment. To recover $150 per employer per week, the restaurants may not need to do much as that comes in as tips... But say the employer is "responsible" for 100 meals per week. A bump of $1.50 per meal can be reasonably swallowed (no pun intended) by the customer. Some job loss, but again not huge amounts...

    That leaves with employment like cleaners, housekeeping etc... A hotel charging $5 more per night... or a slight increase in per shirt fee to clean will be passed on to customer. Some will accept it, other will not... I don't expect huge numbers of unemployed coming from those areas as the demand for services will not go away.

    So, yes, some job loss is a real possibility, but it is only a "possibility"--something that may or may not happen and can also be attributable to the change in demand as much as to an increase in minimum wage.



    Having typed all that, I still would rather a minimum income taxation scheme than this...

  60. #260
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    Okay but if I'm paying more for nannies, burger flippers and other low income employees wages, then I have to cut back on the amount of times I'm using their services, the net dollar spent by me is the same. Just because the NDP increased the minimum wage doesn't mean I get a raise.

  61. #261
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Okay but if I'm paying more for nannies, burger flippers and other low income employees wages, then I have to cut back on the amount of times I'm using their services, the net dollar spent by me is the same. Just because the NDP increased the minimum wage doesn't mean I get a raise.
    no it doesn't and I am not pretending that it would unless the change is a few pennies instead of a few quarters. Also, if you are someone who may notice these increases--someone for whom this would become a financial hardship (as opposed to someone who can easily afford it), you may have benefitted from some of the tax reforms that were aimed at reducing your hardship and you may have benefitted from the wage bump to $15...

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grish View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Not sure how they could claim raising the minimum wage would increase jobs ... huh how is this possible?
    They have funny math. Its the NDP after all.
    regular math...

    The idea is that it would partly increase affordability of things=more consumers=more demand=more jobs down the line... this idea, however, may also lead to inflation although the amount of inflation is probably difficult to predict.

    I understand the fear that increase such as this may lead to some job losses, but I am not sure if the reality will be the same.

    I am going to make a few assumptions:
    1. Large corporations and large employers do not employ people at minimum wage rates. They will be not affected.

    2. Very few or none of medium-sized employers pay minimum wage. No job losses there either.

    3. Laborers in construction business currently work for higher than minimum wage. Very few and very unskilled will be affected.

    4. Only small restaurant type/ convenience store/ housekeeping in hotels/ babysitters and nannies employees will be affected.

    Lets examine the impact. A nanny paid $11/hr for 40 hours of work would make approximately $440 per week. The cost to employer is a bit higher due to employer contributions to CPP and EI. Let's say $500/ week. Same nanny at $15/hr for 40 hours would make now $600 per week and closer to $650 with employer share of CPP and EI. This is a $150/week change for the family or $7800 per year. This nanny may be either laid off or have her hours cut. The most likely situation is a cut in hours for status quo pay only because the alternative is one parent staying home (much bigger loss in salary than $7800) or some sort of day-care. Bad for the nanny, good for daycare who with enough new kids can hire additional staff. This may be a marginal employment loss, but not hordes of unemployed nannies...

    Restaurant/convenience store type employment. To recover $150 per employer per week, the restaurants may not need to do much as that comes in as tips... But say the employer is "responsible" for 100 meals per week. A bump of $1.50 per meal can be reasonably swallowed (no pun intended) by the customer. Some job loss, but again not huge amounts...

    That leaves with employment like cleaners, housekeeping etc... A hotel charging $5 more per night... or a slight increase in per shirt fee to clean will be passed on to customer. Some will accept it, other will not... I don't expect huge numbers of unemployed coming from those areas as the demand for services will not go away.

    So, yes, some job loss is a real possibility, but it is only a "possibility"--something that may or may not happen and can also be attributable to the change in demand as much as to an increase in minimum wage.



    Having typed all that, I still would rather a minimum income taxation scheme than this...
    Remember around 2008 all the restaurants raising their menu charges because oil prices headed up over $100/bbl., so like minimum wage increases that too must have 'notionally' killed a LOT of jobs, but I sure didn't notice any change in staffing, etc. All I noticed was that my restaurant bills were a lot higher, and didn't seem to come down as oil prices fell.

  63. #263
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    nice observation, KC.

  64. #264

    Default

    Alberta's finance minister says low oil may delay programs, initiatives

    THE CANADIAN PRESS, December 21, 2015

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ms-initiatives

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

  66. #266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    You are so anti-democratic.

  67. #267
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    You are so anti-democratic.
    Oh, okay, I posted a poll. Get over it,literally.

  68. #268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    That's pretty conclusive, even in COE support has collapsed. Such a shame we have to wait three more years before the nightmare ends, hopefully we will still have some industry left.

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    That's pretty conclusive, even in COE support has collapsed. Such a shame we have to wait three more years before the nightmare ends, hopefully we will still have some industry left.
    I rather doubt it, not the way she is going..

  70. #270
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Ewart: 'High ideals' forecast to generate higher electricity prices in Alberta

    The “high ideals” of the NDP government will mean higher power prices for all Alberta consumers.

    That’s the blunt conclusion of a research report on Alberta’s power market from prominent Calgary investment firm FirstEnergy Capital released Tuesday. It forecasts electricity prices will decline in the suddenly economically ailing province in 2016 but are poised to rise with implementation of a new provincial carbon tax the following year.

    FirstEnergy analyst Martin King cites the promising outlook for both wind — already 15 per cent of supply some days — and natural gas-fired power with the phase out of coal plants by 2030 but points out the costs to build surplus generating capacity needed with wind and notes the “irony” that most lower-carbon gas plants are linked to the oilsands.

    “The irony is that this (gas-fired) generation is tied to oilsands development, a form of development that the current provincial government party has traditionally opposed because of its perceived high carbon footprint,” King wrote. “Humorous is how one might consider this, in that the very ideal of reducing the carbon output of the province’s power grid is tied to what has been often vilified as the most dirty, energy intensive and evil of carbon-based fuels: oilsands.”
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...714/story.html

    Throw in some token mismanagement ala Ontario style and things could get very expensive.

  71. #271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Ewart: 'High ideals' forecast to generate higher electricity prices in Alberta

    The “high ideals” of the NDP government will mean higher power prices for all Alberta consumers.

    That’s the blunt conclusion of a research report on Alberta’s power market from prominent Calgary investment firm FirstEnergy Capital released Tuesday. It forecasts electricity prices will decline in the suddenly economically ailing province in 2016 but are poised to rise with implementation of a new provincial carbon tax the following year.

    FirstEnergy analyst Martin King cites the promising outlook for both wind — already 15 per cent of supply some days — and natural gas-fired power with the phase out of coal plants by 2030 but points out the costs to build surplus generating capacity needed with wind and notes the “irony” that most lower-carbon gas plants are linked to the oilsands.

    “The irony is that this (gas-fired) generation is tied to oilsands development, a form of development that the current provincial government party has traditionally opposed because of its perceived high carbon footprint,” King wrote. “Humorous is how one might consider this, in that the very ideal of reducing the carbon output of the province’s power grid is tied to what has been often vilified as the most dirty, energy intensive and evil of carbon-based fuels: oilsands.”
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...714/story.html

    Throw in some token mismanagement ala Ontario style and things could get very expensive.
    If we want cheap electricity, build more coal plants. If we want clean air, then we have to resort to more costly options. Natural gas is cheap right now so I imagine we'll build more gas turbine plants, but gas prices could double or triple and a winner today could be portrayed as a bungled plan tomorrow.

  72. #272
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Ewart: 'High ideals' forecast to generate higher electricity prices in Alberta

    The “high ideals” of the NDP government will mean higher power prices for all Alberta consumers.

    That’s the blunt conclusion of a research report on Alberta’s power market from prominent Calgary investment firm FirstEnergy Capital released Tuesday. It forecasts electricity prices will decline in the suddenly economically ailing province in 2016 but are poised to rise with implementation of a new provincial carbon tax the following year.

    FirstEnergy analyst Martin King cites the promising outlook for both wind — already 15 per cent of supply some days — and natural gas-fired power with the phase out of coal plants by 2030 but points out the costs to build surplus generating capacity needed with wind and notes the “irony” that most lower-carbon gas plants are linked to the oilsands.

    “The irony is that this (gas-fired) generation is tied to oilsands development, a form of development that the current provincial government party has traditionally opposed because of its perceived high carbon footprint,” King wrote. “Humorous is how one might consider this, in that the very ideal of reducing the carbon output of the province’s power grid is tied to what has been often vilified as the most dirty, energy intensive and evil of carbon-based fuels: oilsands.”
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...714/story.html

    Throw in some token mismanagement ala Ontario style and things could get very expensive.
    I do hope not, just about everyone in Ontario hates the rates they pay.

  73. #273

  74. #274

    Default

    Yes, interesting. Thanks for posting. Too bad it's so biased. Anyway, this was also interesting in that article...


    EIGHT MONTHS OF THE NDP IN REVIEW: MAIN THEMES PRETTY MUCH AS PREDICTED ON DAY 2



    “Within months,” Dr. Caplan wrote, “Rae’s government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history.” His 2010 column in the Globe and Mail went on:

    “It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

    “They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed – were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.”

    ...

    http://albertapolitics.ca/2015/12/ei...cted-on-day-2/
    Last edited by KC; 23-12-2015 at 10:45 PM.

  75. #275
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Rae was so bad, he had days named after him.LOL

  76. #276

    Default

    ^its funny how whenever the NDP fails miserably, it's always somebody else fault. I ended up disliking the PCs for their bloated government ways, but the NDP, instead of giving us a breath of fresh air from that, are just giving us even more. No wonder their support is going down the toilet, the leopard needed to change its spots to govern this province, and it hasn't. They have ruled so far, like a boys club, for example getting advice to write the CO2 rules from just four giant oil and gas companies (who knows what promises have been made to them in return for that support).

  77. #277
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,534

    Default

    Notley's recent speech to the party:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cR3RneGa7A


    You have to admit, even if you disagree with her politics, she can really deliver a barnburner of a speech.

  78. #278
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Rae was so bad, he had days named after him.LOL
    Actually, "Rae Days" were a result of reduced spending, the policy conservatives claim to favour. So, it's a bit odd to see him being ridiculed by conservatives for that.

  79. #279
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hello lady View Post
    Rae was so bad, he had days named after him.LOL
    Actually, "Rae Days" were a result of reduced spending, the policy conservatives claim to favour. So, it's a bit odd to see him being ridiculed by conservatives for that.

    Well we lived in Ont, while he was in power, and it was dreadful, people hated Rae.

  80. #280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^its funny how whenever the NDP fails miserably, it's always somebody else fault. I ended up disliking the PCs for their bloated government ways, but the NDP, instead of giving us a breath of fresh air from that, are just giving us even more. No wonder their support is going down the toilet, the leopard needed to change its spots to govern this province, and it hasn't. They have ruled so far, like a boys club, for example getting advice to write the CO2 rules from just four giant oil and gas companies (who knows what promises have been made to them in return for that support).
    NDP is in bed with "four giant oil and gas companies".

    So are you saying that they are too "Progressive Conservative"?

  81. #281

    Default

    The National Post doesn't want anyone quoting their stories. Too bad. This is one every Albertan and every Alberta MLA should read (with a critical eye of course).

    Note Ontario's debt level.
    Note Ontario's energy costs.
    Note the comment on the unintended regressive 'taxation'


    Joe Oliver: Ontario’s fiscal train wreck
    Financial Post, December 28, 2015


    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...al-train-wreck

  82. #282

    Default

    ^They are in denial. The problem with compounding interest and debt is just gets worse, and worse, and worse, once you hit a certain point. It can eventually spiral out of control. I think there is a generation right now, who don't know how bad these situations can get. When eventually a Conservative government is elected there to clean up the mess, we are going to hear all these horrible stories about the heartless Conservatives. But the heartless ones are the governments who spend more than they can afford because they are creating that burden for future generations, like our NDP is right now.

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^They are in denial. The problem with compounding interest and debt is just gets worse, and worse, and worse, once you hit a certain point. It can eventually spiral out of control. I think there is a generation right now, who don't know how bad these situations can get. When eventually a Conservative government is elected there to clean up the mess, we are going to hear all these horrible stories about the heartless Conservatives. But the heartless ones are the governments who spend more than they can afford because they are creating that burden for future generations, like our NDP is right now.
    It's always a balancing act so you shouldn't be dogmatic about it. Ask any business person and they'll agree that there are companies that borrowed heavily, if not to insanely high levels, and turned into great businesses as a result and others that avoided all debt and still collapsed. We've seen right-wing governments take on a lot of debt, possibly a lot more than a left-wing one would, and get away with that debt burdening the following left-wing government with the task of rebalancing to reality

  84. #284
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,962

    Default

    CTF claims NDP is solely responsible for economy troubles

    Edmonton,Alberta / iNews880
    Travis Dosser
    January 05, 2016

    The Canadian Taxpayers Federation thinks the NDP government can no longer blame the Conservatives, who ran the province for 44-years, for the state of Alberta’s finances.

    Paige MacPherson, a CTF spokesperson, believes the NDP policies of large deficits and out of control spending are the main reasons for Alberta’s current financial problems.

    “Obviously, the declining price of oil have had a big impact on the economy but by continuing to ramp up spending, continuing to ramp up debt and deficits and raising taxes on people, making it more difficult to make their own investments privately in the economy, they are sort of rubbing salt into the wound,” explained MacPherson.

    MacPherson emphasizes policy led to Alberta’s credit downgrade, saying it was more than just low oil prices.

    “Our Finance Minister Joe Ceci went forward and continued to blame it entirely on oil prices and this is despite the fact that the Standard and Poor Report suggests the province’s tax-supported debt burden was a major factor in the credit downgrade,” explains MacPherson.

    MacPherson says at the time Alberta’s credit rating was downgraded, a major financial institution (National Bank Financial) warned that NDP policy had a big part to play.

    “Essentially what the warning was about was the years of large deficits, a lack of credible repayment plan and big infrastructure spending, coupled with that and put Alberta’s credit rating at risk,” explains MacPherson.

    Despite the fact that the NDP hasn’t been in power for a full year yet, the CTF and MacPherson believe the previous 44-years of Progressive Conservative governments no longer have any effect on Alberta.

    “When it came to raising taxes and increasing borrowing room, they did that too sweet when they got into government, they implemented it right away but when it came to their balanced budget plan, it wasn’t a priority and they continue to push that date down the road and it is scaring investors a little bit,” explains MacPherson.
    http://www.inews880.com/2016/01/05/c...sc_ref=twitter

  85. #285

    Talking

    LOL - what else would the CTF think??? It's not as if they're capable of comprehending the Conservative contribution to the conundrum.

    Can't even
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  86. #286
    grish
    Guest

    Default

    Lol ctf...

  87. #287
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    More hack pseudo-think tanks proving themselves worthless.

    There is plenty to criticize the NDP on. Let's try: the complete lack of a serious plan to diversify the economy; projected continual reliance on oil to fund operational spending rather than operational income or cutbacks; PC-style knee-jerk governance decisions; molasses-slow decision making on ongoing policy implementations; zero notable health care reforms to address the impending doom of our fiscal capacity under crushing costs, etc, etc, etc.

    Yet they decide to put out another sad hacked together smear job that can be cut into pieces by any high school educated Albertan with the capability to utilize a modicum of critical thinking.

  88. #288

    Default

    ^ yeah, blaming the new surgeon for the old surgeon's botched operation.

    "Current financial problems". Very odd. She doesn't seem to understand debt downgrades.

    "make their own investments privately in the economy" nor how capital and investments flow.

  89. #289

    Default

    Years ago Notley complained that the PCs were encouraging 'rapid unsustainable growth' in the oil sands 'without a plan' to deal with the ramifications (encouraging immigration, creating a lack of schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, etc.). I think there were even calls for a moratorium on development. Of course, she was ignored.

    I don't know if she mentioned cost escalation through the "piling on effect" but that clearly happened.

    What is interesting in the first couple paragraphs of this story below is where this person's earnings went. Sustenance here yes, but whereof the net proceeds of a decent paycheque?

    So here we have it. We had low non-progressive flat taxes, no broad sales tax and where do the incoming workers invest their money? Read the quote below!

    Basically the people that come for the work opportunity reward us by taking their money out of the province. It's not being saved for opportunistic investing here in a downturn. Even a lot of people that come here to work for years, still plan to retire elsewhere and so in a downturn will never be seen putting their money into Alberta based investments. They diversify in order to depart.

    Worse, when we develop at an unsustainable pace, we essentially force people to depart with their skills and savings to other parts of the country. We definitely don't optimize or maximize development potential.



    The death of the Alberta dream

    Large-scale layoffs, empty office towers, falling house prices: Alberta has been gutted by the glut.
    Jason Markusoff, January 6, 2016



    "Late last year, Brandon MacKay listed his Kawasaki dirt bike for sale on Kijiji, the online classifieds site. It was the only treat the 25-year-old had given himself in three years living in Fort McMurray. The rest he’d spent on supporting and visiting his wife and kids in Pictou County, N.S. But in crafting the ad for the bike—$4,400 or best offer—MacKay did what any sales agent would advise against: he revealed his desperation to sell. “I lost my job and am in need of money for my wife and kids for Christmas.”

    MacKay had followed a well-worn path to prosperity for East Coasters: with limited job prospects at home, the engineering technologist flew to Alberta’s oil sands capital and found a job in mechanical sales. It was good money. He bought a 30-acre plot and 2,000-sq.-foot house for his family back east. One day, while he was setting up for a client visit, his branch manager summoned MacKay for what he thought would be a meeting about sales projections for 2016. “Before I could even sit down,” MacKay recalls, “he told me it was my last day.”

    Now MacKay is faced with a reality that would have been inconceivable a year ago: he might have to leave Alberta to find a job. ..."

    ...


    But, to Jaster’s point, there is much his province used to have that now seems gone. Most noticeable is Alberta’s eroding status as the Promised Land for so many Canadians from other parts of the country. Over the last decade, net interprovincial migration by 18- to 44-year-olds, the key working demographic, swelled Alberta’s population by 200,000, according to a report by a rather envious Business Council of British Columbia. (That province netted fewer than 40,000 over that stretch, while all other provinces were net losers.)
    ...

    As bad as last year was for Alberta, things will likely get worse before they get better, says Hirsch, the ATB economist. He expects lower retail spending, continued layoffs and declining consumer confidence, all of which will be a drag on the economy. “This recession, compared to ’09, is sort of like being hit with a blunt object. It’s not as painful, but it’s going to linger longer,” he says.


    http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/t...alberta-dream/

    Last edited by KC; 06-01-2016 at 12:17 PM.

  90. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ^ yeah, blaming the new surgeon for the old surgeon's botched operation.
    I just don't get this. What does the PC have to do with the spending decisions the current government makes? Absolutely, nothing. They can choose to waste money like the PC's did towards the end, or, they can choose for us to live within our means. If we can't afford our current government spending, which we can't, its pretty simple what has to happen. Taxes up and / or spending down, or debt (which IMO is the worst as its punting the problem to future generations / lowering the money they will have to spend because of the interest cost).

  91. #291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ^ yeah, blaming the new surgeon for the old surgeon's botched operation.
    I just don't get this. What does the PC have to do with the spending decisions the current government makes? Absolutely, nothing. They can choose to waste money like the PC's did towards the end, or, they can choose for us to live within our means. If we can't afford our current government spending, which we can't, its pretty simple what has to happen. Taxes up and / or spending down, or debt (which IMO is the worst as its punting the problem to future generations / lowering the money they will have to spend because of the interest cost).
    You've got it backwards The PCs have everything to do with the current spending. You know as well as I do that you don't turn a ship on a dime - unless your some sort of autocratic sociopath.


    As for downgrades... this is old news... but it's closer to reality than the CTF seems to understand:


    Alberta deficit soars on natural gas bust
    DAVID EBNER AND KATHERINE O'NEILL, Globe and Mail, Aug. 27 2009
    excerpts:

    "This time, however, the province has $17-billion in a "sustainability fund" to soak up deficits, though the $6.9-billion shortfall will make a major gouge in the rainy-day fund. "This is a traditional pattern Alberta has found itself again and again. Even though it's unpleasant, this is familiar territory. This is how it's always been," said economist Todd Hirsch at bank ATB Financial in Calgary.

    In a province that had grown accustomed to easy multibillion-dollar surpluses when natural gas and oil prices were far higher, almost all of the deficit increase is because of natural gas. ...

    Of the $2.09-billion revenue shortfall from the original budget, Alberta said $1.83-billion is because of lower natural gas prices. ...

    For each $1 decline in the gas price, Alberta sees $1.3-billion in annual royalties vanish."


    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4283889/

  92. #292

    Default

    ^so, if current government has no control, and everything is to blame on previous governments, then why do we even have government? I'm sorry, but the past is the past. NDP have to deal with the situation today, blaming the past doesn't change that. Just because my illness was caused by a bad doctor last year, isn't a reason to not administer medicine this year.

  93. #293
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so, if current government has no control, and everything is to blame on previous governments, then why do we even have government? I'm sorry, but the past is the past. NDP have to deal with the situation today, blaming the past doesn't change that. Just because my illness was caused by a bad doctor last year, isn't a reason to not administer medicine this year.
    If people are going but back to 2009 to make a point, we know the NDP are in trouble. Wait and see what the Notley Crue does to this province..
    Last edited by H.L.; 06-01-2016 at 03:26 PM.

  94. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so, if current government has no control, and everything is to blame on previous governments, then why do we even have government? I'm sorry, but the past is the past. NDP have to deal with the situation today, blaming the past doesn't change that. Just because my illness was caused by a bad doctor last year, isn't a reason to not administer medicine this year.
    Say you graduate in finance and then tomorrow IBM creates the autonomous-accountant/finance expert - and worst adopts the Google/Facebook model and gives it away for free (or maybe you're a cab driver and something called Uber comes along.) So tomorrow you're going to start working as a doctor or lawyer? I doubt it. There's always those pesky little things called 'reality' and time that gets in the way.

    Our current elected government is dealing with a whole lot of legacy issues, legacy legislation, legacy economics, etc. Same as all of our 'unprepared' (unhedged, undiversified, etc.) energy and energy related companies.

    So, what you're saying, if I have it right is: stop borrowing, pay down debt, slash costs, etc. to "right the ship". This is akin to me saying: to maximize long-term returns, the last thing a rational capital allocator would do is to pump more of the commodity-like resource into an oversupplied market, especially when you are losing money.

    So, are all of Alberta businesses run by fools? No, and only fool would ignore reality and follow the generalized principles I just stated. Only in an idealized world, you would shut down production as soon as the commodity price sank to an unprofitable level. However, instead, in order to survive in the short-term, the 'smart' (or only) thing for a lot of 'unprepared' businesses to do, is to pump even more of the commodities into the market, even at the risk of creating a longer-term death spiral. Then they must hope and pray the other actors fail fail first, or commodity conditions change and a price recovery takes place.

    The same for the Province. It is piling on more debt (at a low opportunistic but soon to jump up rate), judiciously relocating (not cutting) expenditures to save our economy, prevent major dislocation, keep people working, keep the velocity of money supply up to prevent local short-term failure at the risk of longer term problems.

    Another way to look at it is the Global Warming example. The fanatical (maybe totally rational) fear mongers would have us shutting down all fossil fuel generation RIGHT DAMNED NOW! The long-term risks are so great. Those living in reality thing otherwise and prefer to gamble because PV is always worth more than estimated FV.
    Last edited by KC; 06-01-2016 at 01:22 PM.

  95. #295

    Default

    ^no, what I'm saying, is if my salary gets slashed (which is what has happened to our government because of the oil price cuts), then I have to cut back on my spending. It doesn't matter how much I partied last year, I can't sustain that lifestyle anymore. Either that, or find another job (increased taxes), or borrow in the hope that my salary improves next year. IMO the last option isn't good governance (because we all know, that when my salary goes up next year, I will have to spend more because of the "boom" in oil prices around me). The answer isn't to always spend and borrow more.

  96. #296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^no, what I'm saying, is if my salary gets slashed (which is what has happened to our government because of the oil price cuts), then I have to cut back on my spending. Either that, or find another job (increased taxes), or borrow in the hope that my salary improves next year. IMO the last option isn't good governance (because we all know, that when my salary goes up next year, we will have to spend more because of the "boom"). The answer isn't to always spend and borrow more.
    That's you and not the government. Blindly assuming what is good for the individual is good for the whole can in turn be bad for the individual.

    In this little oil price dip we have no idea how long it is going to last. We can't predict the price of oil, let alone the future. So now that it is upon us and we sit here with our asses exposed, we can add fuel to the deflationary fire by slashing government expenditures - thus creating a high risk of depression or a whole lot more individual pain. Or we can hedge our bets, hope and pray for relief of some kind. (Much like an individual accessing a line of credit to hold them over and prevent them from liquidating assets possibly at fire sale prices.)
    Last edited by KC; 06-01-2016 at 01:32 PM.

  97. #297

    Default

    ^all I know, is answer since Klein has always been the same, which has resulted in us having the most expensive government per person in Canada:

    - we are in a boom, so government has to spend more to keep up with infrastructure
    - we are in a depression, so government has to spend more to stimulate the economy

    Regardless of whether we are in a boom, or a depression, the answer is to live within our means. If that means we have to have 25 kids in a class instead of 20, then so be it, its better than our children's children having to have 30.

  98. #298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^all I know, is answer since Klein has always been the same, which has resulted in us having the most expensive government per person in Canada:

    - we are in a boom, so government has to spend more to keep up with infrastructure
    - we are in a depression, so government has to spend more to stimulate the economy

    Regardless of whether we are in a boom, or a depression, the answer is to live within our means. If that means we have to have 25 kids in a class instead of 20, then so be it, its better than our children's children having to have 30.
    I fully agree. I was calling for that years ago. However, if you didn't live within your means and you lost your job, would you then evict one or more of your children? Or would you first draw on your line of credit and start working to stabilize the situation via the most minimally damaging route?

    - - - Most minimally damaging to not only you, but also your family? - - -

  99. #299

    Default

    ^I think start by not having more children / spending more.

    Stabilize government spending. We got downgraded because it hasn't been.

    To the extent there is a logic to invest in something because costs are now low, then at least have a clear plan for how the debt for it will be paid off, which doesn't rely on "when oil prices go up...".

    My fear is, Oil will go up tomorrow, government revenues will swell, and there will be even more spending to do (its limitless the things a progressive government can spend on, for example, a home for every homeless person, bigger benefits, more government staff, etc.).
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-01-2016 at 02:43 PM.

  100. #300

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •