Alberta Provincial Right wing party discussion

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That’s another reason I’m thinking the likely empty promise he’s publicizing now to abolish the carbon tax is just a tactic to win over le stupido single issue voters. Not that it would be stupid to vote UPC, but probably stupid if you are basing your vote on that single issue

Don't forget the NDP got in on an ever stupider single issue: "I don't like the PCs"

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can’t say I have notice any improvements to, well anything, since all these spending increases have happened.

Exactly. Spoiler alert, our infrastructure will always be shit if we keep piling on debt for social justice purposes.

And you can't spend money if you don't have any. We don't have any, so looks like we get shit. If we'd have stayed on Ralph Klein's path, none of this would have been an issue.

[16hypen3sp]

Healthcare system costs too much. It's a massive public burden that causes a lack of funding for the rest of our programs. Healthcare needs total reform.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our infrastructure turned to shit because of reduction in expenditures, and digging out our debt.

When you get into an infrastructure deficit, you have to spend a lot just to ‘not fall further behind.’ Combine hat with a boom and no planning for it and you get governments having to jack up spending without much improvement to show for it. Basically the story of Alberta from ‘95 to today.

[HiTempguy1]

No, that is all basically fallacy and makes zero fiscal sense.

The fallacy being its predicated on the idea that somehow infrastructure somehow suffers a permanent deficit because funding is low.

That would be like saying a business will suffer permanently if it cuts back on certain purchases in a given year. Its not. And if it is suffering under huge debt loads, the only choice is to lower its debt.

Fucking christ, no wonder our governments are bankrupting us with people like you supporting that bullshit.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No, that is all basically fallacy and makes zero fiscal sense.

The fallacy being its predicated on the idea that somehow infrastructure somehow suffers a permanent deficit because funding is low.

That would be like saying a business will suffer permanently if it cuts back on certain purchases in a given year. Its not. And if it is suffering under huge debt loads, the only choice is to lower its debt.

Fucking christ, no wonder our governments are bankrupting us with people like you supporting that bullshit.

The economy shrinks, but the city grows. Infrastructure needs still grows. Number of people using infrastructure grows. This happened all over the province. Each time you put off a capital/infrastructure purchase it just pushes it down the line. The need for infrastructure remains, and continues to grow. Then the economy gets better, even more people move here, so infrastructure needs grow even more, outpacing the growth of the economy because you’re still in an infrastructure deficit from before so you can’t keep up...

But also, a business CAN suffer permanently if it doesn’t make capital purchases in a given year. It definitely suffers if it falls behind on multiple capital projects in multiple years (which anybody who’s had to manage both operational and capital budgets for multiple years would know). Now imagine if those companies had to expand operations even though their revenue was going down? They don’t have the option of not expanding, because unlike a regular business, the government isn’t a regular business. All of a sudden not making those capital purchases and upgrades puts you in a hole you’re going to spend a long, long time trying to dig your way out of.

[killramos]

Kertejud: There is always another completely necessary government project to spend money on...

and the world will literally end if we don't.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kertejud: There is always another completely necessary government project to spend money on

Give me dictatorial power and I will wipe billions of future (and currently budgeted) capital spending off The books.

Crowchild/Bow/Memorial upgrades? With $60 oil? It doesn’t make a difference if we don’t do anything now, so how could it possibly be justified to spend he money.

More snow removal equipment to handle more roads? Also makes no difference for operations. How could it? We are in a provincial deficit. How could we have more roads to plow?

That 7 minute fire response time thing? Why do we need to build fire stations if we don’t have he money never mind putting fire trucks in them.

Ring Road? In this economy?! No fiscally responsible person could call that relic of a design a need. Why have we allowed construction to continue?!

If we don’t increase the road repair budget, we couldn’t possibly fall behind with it until we have a surplus again, amirite?

[killramos]

Glad to see we are on the same page

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Glad to see we are on the same page

Kurt is the kind of guy who would support a gov like the Ontario liberals borrowing $95bil to lower people's electricity bills that the govs policies drove up. That's about how sound his undwrstanding of fiscal policy and economics is.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kurt is the kind of guy who would support a gov like the Ontario liberals borrowing $95bil to lower people's electricity bills that the govs policies drove up. That's about how sound his undwrstanding of fiscal policy and economics is.

You seem like somebody who would Ride the NYC subway and think “I’m glad they haven’t invested any money into this. This is fine. No room for improvement here.”

But while we’re throwing stones let’s remeber one, super important thing:

Between us only one person has voted for the NDP. So it would be pretty embarrassing to be that guy and talk about knowledge of fiscal responsibility and economics.

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But while we’re throwing stones let’s remeber one, super important thing:

Between us only one person has voted for the NDP. So it would be pretty embarrassing to be that guy and talk about knowledge of fiscal responsibility and economics.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Between us only one person has voted for the NDP. So it would be pretty embarrassing to be that guy and talk about knowledge of fiscal responsibility and economics.

Not at all. While I now believe overall it was a mistake (my goal was always to get a strong NDP minority in, figuring that would be enough to get rid of the PCs and also show how awful modern day liberalism is), the NDP getting a majority may have been the best thing for Alberta, as there won't be a chance for anyone but the UCP (or its derivatives) for the next 50 years to be voted in. Short term pain, long term gain, a concept you are wholly unable to comprehend with the sort of economics you support.

The PC's weren't going to do much different financially than the NDP already were, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. They were even considering a direct PST rather than the carbon tax garbage.

As for the NYC subway, if they don't have the money to do it, you are 100% correct. Part of the problem with the fiscal irresponsibility you support is not showing taxpayers what the true costs of services and goods are. When people realize the actual costs to their wallet, they may think twice about what they do and do not want to pay taxes for. Like your bike lanes, massive, insane amounts of money for the 5 people like yourself that have nothing better to do than waste their time biking everywhere.

[J-hop]

Yea what the hell, even I didn’t vote NDP.....

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Short term pain, long term gain, a concept you are wholly unable to comprehend with the sort of economics you support.

As for the NYC subway, if they don't have the money to do it, you are 100% correct. Part of the problem with the fiscal irresponsibility you support is not showing taxpayers what the true costs of services and goods are. When people realize the actual costs to their wallet, they may think twice about what they do and do not want to pay taxes for.

I don’t think you get what short term pain and long term gain is in this context.

NYC is 40 years behind on signal replacement. Because of that they can’t buy new train cars to add to the system. Which means they can’t increase capacity despite the population increasing, and not being able to use new cars means they’re stuck with aged technology with their current cars.

They are in a position where they can’t even show people what the real costs are, because they wouldnt be able to spend it anyway. The cost they know is that if they get $15B today they could speed up their signal replacement system, which means they could improve capacity in 15 years (and it will cost more in 15 years than today). But that means there probably wouldn’t be any money left for station upgrades and improvement, replacing the oldest train cars who’s AC has broken down and doors don’t work, and certainly none for expansion. That is an infrastructure deficit. Getting yourself in one is short term relief in a budget for long term pain operationally and delaying even more pain. Calgary and Alberta have had the same with roads, interchanges, utility networks, mass transit, etc. But while people see debt on capital projects as “making the grandkids pay for it” since all that stuff need to be paid for eventually if you want a place that isn’t a shithole, they’re going to have to pay anyway.

[ExtraSlow]

Potentially relevant here. Cbc article says Albertans are socially progressive at heart. TBH this matches my limited experience.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...rvey-1.4639232

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Social values
A full 82 per cent of respondents think more should be done to reduce the pay gap between men and women. Seventy-four per cent want more women in politics. And, perhaps more surprisingly in a province often characterized as a pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps sort of place, 78 per cent think more should be done to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. A majority think more should be done for Indigenous people.

Only half believe when businesses make a lot of money, everyone benefits.

Relevant quotes

[CUG]

I think these people need to be better conservatives. If they sounded even slightly more intellectually resourced and weren't constantly pandering to the back country redneck, I'd maybe vote for them. Until that time; Alberta Party all day.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think you get what short term pain and long term gain is in this context.

NYC is 40 years behind on signal replacement. Because of that they can’t buy new train cars to add to the system. Which means they can’t increase capacity despite the population increasing, and not being able to use new cars means they’re stuck with aged technology with their current cars.

They are in a position where they can’t even show people what the real costs are, because they wouldnt be able to spend it anyway. The cost they know is that if they get $15B today they could speed up their signal replacement system, which means they could improve capacity in 15 years (and it will cost more in 15 years than today). But that means there probably wouldn’t be any money left for station upgrades and improvement, replacing the oldest train cars who’s AC has broken down and doors don’t work, and certainly none for expansion. That is an infrastructure deficit. Getting yourself in one is short term relief in a budget for long term pain operationally and delaying even more pain. Calgary and Alberta have had the same with roads, interchanges, utility networks, mass transit, etc. But while people see debt on capital projects as “making the grandkids pay for it” since all that stuff need to be paid for eventually if you want a place that isn’t a shithole, they’re going to have to pay anyway.

I thought high density meant lower costs, higher taxes per sq ft (NYC - THE CITY - has an income tax) = financial utopia.

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

since all that stuff need to be paid for eventually if you want a place that isn’t a shithole, they’re going to have to pay anyway.

I don't think you understand how debt works. Or economics/finance in general really. This stuff should already be factored into the taxation of the citizens (X tax dollars required = Y tax rate). If it isn't, its quite literally

“making the grandkids pay for it”

, how it could be anything else is beyond me. Especially when the population realizes that they can spend more than they deserve ahead of time to benefit themselves while sticking the bill to the future.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought high density meant lower costs, higher taxes per sq ft (NYC - THE CITY - has an income tax) = financial utopia.

Higher density appears to be a scam, for some reason it is more expensive to live in the densest cities even though the costs are claimed to be lower. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim cost of living in a city (both tax wise and overall dollar wise) has been cheaper.