HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Vote

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-29-2004, 04:02 PM
  #76
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by PineJockey
And yet Conservative voters (although not, I might add the CPC party), seem to reject the notion of proportional representation . . .
Yes, because if you look at the election it would have solved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Our answer to this is the triple E senate, without one, I agree with Hot Toddy, this confederation will be lucky to last 30 more years. Even with a triple E senate - I prey that I see the day when somebody in Ontario who benefits from my provinces wealth can no longer dictate to me how my province will be run. HotToddy hit the nail on the head. What we are witnessing is taxation without representation.... sure.... we elect seats and have a small representation.... but is it meaningful when balanced against Ontario and Quebec's will? Not to a fraction of a degree. Meaningless and powerless representation is the same as no representation.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=160 - the Unofficial HF Political board
thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:05 PM
  #77
PineJockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: E-Town
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Then people in the east HAVE to stop electing centralists who are only interested in serving the east!!! Why would they not vote for the reform party then? Because the main agenda of the reform party was to give the west a voice. Guess what, if that happens then the west wouldn't be run over like it has been.

Get real. People in Ontario did not vote Liberal in order to prevent the west from having a voice. They voted Liberal because they perceived it as being in their best interests to do so (right or wrong). It is not up to voters to change because someone tells them they ought to, it is up to the political parties to convince voters that they should vote for them. In this election, the CPC did a poor job of framing their platform as being in the best interests of everyday voters. They essentially ran on a program of "We will not be the Liberals". This, then, allowed Liberal attack ads to focus on social issues rather than economic, etc., Why didn't the CPC highlight, for example, that their tax program would save every joe around $1000 per year. Why didn't they focus on how they would cut business subsidies, cut taxes, etc.

PineJockey is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:08 PM
  #78
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
It's called taxation without representation. As an Albertan and a Canadian I don't mind paying taxes and sharing our wealth with the rest of the confederate. We are fortunate here in Alberta to be sitting on a wealth of black gold and I don't resent equalization dollars going to other provinces.

What I can't accept is not having a Godamn say in how this country is run.
Elected senate, we can dream on. We don't like the gun registry, too F**CKING bad it's gonna be crammed down our chaw. Kyoto is gonna cause problems with the oil industry, suck it up Alberta, we're only handing out exemptions to the Ontario auto industry.

We have this antiquedated parliament system that makes the opinions of our elected MP's null and void. Central/Atlantic Canada votes in the Liberals and that's what we get an Eastern based governent with an Eastern based cabinet and Eastern based views. That's why an elected Senate is such a big deal in Alberta,to at least allow for the possibility of some balance of power in Ottawa.

The question remains, how long can a nation that is divided into three political regions survive. I would guess this county is in the last 20-30 years of it's life for the simple reason that the powers to be have never come up with a way to distribute power equally among the provinces. People point fingers and laugh at the American republic system but they found a way to distribute power among 50 states (triple E senate) we can't even do it among 10 provinces. Liberals can laugh and Conservatives can whine about last nights result but we are witnessing the beginning of the end of Confederation.

But with a triple E senate, the liberals would have a strict majority of seats (I think it breaks down to 4 Conservatives, 8 Liberals, and 1Block if you split it up by provinces/territories).

As I said before, I think that the west is distorting the facts as to why people out East are not voting for the Conservatives. The reason I didn't vote for them (and most of my friends) is not because the Liberals buy my vote it was two reasons.

1)Conservatives would run up a deficit. I defy people to come up with where money would come for the billions in tax cuts

2)Civil liberties. I'm sorry - but I support the Supreme court sticking up for minorities and saying to government "it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants to discriminate, it isn't going to happen"

Neither of these two items have anything to do with East vs West. I lived in Edmonton/Vancouver for years, and didn't like the Aliance when I was there! Until western parties (and the conservatives are that) realize that they can't have right wing socially conservative platforms and win... they will loose IMO, not because they are western, but because the ideas are repugnant to many Eastern voters.

oil slick is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:11 PM
  #79
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Ah yes, the good old "The Provincial Distribution of Federal Fiscal Balances" report. A little outdated, but still interesting. Interesting in the numbers you quoted are on a strictly cash flow basis, not a benefits basis. The difference of course is huge, and it irritates me to no extent that people are continually grabbing this report and taking small sections out and crying about it.

Firstly, cash-flow is the very simplified version of it. It's also the only means to look at it, because once the money is in the pot, it's hard to look back after 30 years to find exactly what money went to what.

Now, the real analysis is the benefit basis, and in his report (which I hope to God you actually read, and didn't just rip this from that separation alberta website), he clearly defined the two.

If the federal government collected $10 billion in revenues from province A and used it to purchase $10 billion worth of military hardware produced in province B, the cash-flow approach would show a transfer of $10 billion in purchasing power from province A to province B. With the benefits approach, the expenditure of $10 billion would be viewed as producing consumption (or defense) benefits of this amount and some portion of these would be credited back to province A. If this were the only transaction and the two provinces were equal in terms of population, the benefits approach would show a balance of -$5 billion for province A and +$5 billion for province B. With the cash flow approach, the respective balances would be -$10 billion and +$10 billion.

It also states that the fiscal balances by region are determined by: Direct Taxes (income taxes on individuals and corporations, succession and estate duties, contributions to public service pensions, contributions to unemployment insurance and withholding taxes); Indirect Taxes (indirect taxes on banks and insurance
companies, customs import duties, excise duties, excise taxes, the oil export charge, the Petroleum Compensation levy, the Canadian Ownership charge, air transportation taxes, and miscellaneous indirect taxes); Investment Income (interest
on government-held public funds and on loans, advances and investments plus remittances from government business enterprises); Government Expenditure (expenditures on goods and services associated with government operations); Transfer Payments (transfer payments to individuals, businesses, non-residents and to provincial and municipal governments); and Interest on the Public Debt
(interest payments to residents and non-residents).

Add to that, which is the biggest thing here, is that if the going price for oil was $10/barrel, and Alberta sold it to Ontario for $6/barrel, Alberta adds $4, and Ontario takes away $4. And considering Alberta sold a tonne of Oil to Ontario between 1962 and 1992, yeah, that's going to affect Albert a lot.

Add to that the fact Albert has been selling Oil to all of Canada under the going market value, that grossly inflated number becomes huge. If you sell 3000 barrels of Oiler for $2 under market value, yours (according to the table) goes up $2, while who ever you sold it to has theirs drop $2, meaning a $6000 difference either way. Add to that the fact that Alberta has shipped a hell of a lot more Oil than that in 30 years, and you see why the difference is so huge.

Don't kid yourself, Alberta made a hell of a lot of money from this.

I really would wish that people read the whole report instead of picking out one single table and labelling it as fact... it's absolutely tragic that Robert Mansell and Ronald Schlenker went to all that trouble to go into detail about what the study involved to have one person destroy all that research by posting an inaccruate (which it was) listing of his interpretation of some of the information.
I have read the report. Several times in fact. I am aware that those numbers exxagerate the ammount that Alberta loses, but the fact remains Alberta loses. Do you honestly believe that we NEED to sell our Oil to the other provinces for under Market value??!?!??!!?!? OF COURSE NOT! It is because we are HELPING out "fellow" canadians. If we wanted we could have simply said, ok, market price, or we'll sell it to the Americans would would ABSOLUTELY love to get more and more oil from Alberta so that they rely less on the middle east for Oil. Don't kid yourself. Confederation is an economical burden on Alberta and a benefit to the rest of confederation (including other western provinces). And your post is what I mean entirely about the ungreatful sentiment that you return for us showing compassion and brotherhood with you by giving you big deals of massive % on our main product. It's the lack of thanks that breeds the lack of concern about what we are thinking, and in turn what makes us want to leave so that we each can be left to our own devices.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:11 PM
  #80
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
What more can be done to convince!?!?!? Ontario elected a CORRUPT party. And the problem is that it isn't simply because we disagree.... it's because our opinion NEVER EVER matters. The conservatives were a party willing to give the west a greater say by reform in the house and in the senate - but his message wasn't heard as loudly by the foolish masses (I'm not saying all are fools, I'm saying the masses, I know that many voted conservative and herd the message) as what complete and utter scare adds (lies) were. What will it take to open their eyes!?!?! I guarentee that if this minority government lasts and if another Liberal government (especially if it's a majority) then you will see the seperatist parties all over Alberta win NUMEROUS seats in the both federal and provincal elections. Perhaps after a 100 years of not not listening we have the right to want to for our OWN government and decide HOW and WHEN we give money to Quebec and the maritimes.
The choices were the status quo, or a moron who is literally 50 years behind the times socially.

Did any of you actually hear what Harper was talking about?

Talk about lies, let's not forget the fact that Harper completely turned around on his talk about supporting the U.S. in Iraq with our troops... it's not that he had a change of opinion, he out and out lied that he even said it.

I voted P.C. in the 2nd last provincial election, I also vote P.C. the last time Chretien ran... the last provincial election I voted Liberal and same with this federal election.

My mind wasn't made up until Harper made a complete ass out of himself numerous times, and his social ideas that belong back in the 1950's.

Sorry, I voted for the lesser of two evils.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:15 PM
  #81
get yer Aivazoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a little left of centre
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
It's called taxation without representation. As an Albertan and a Canadian I don't mind paying taxes and sharing our wealth with the rest of the confederate. We are fortunate here in Alberta to be sitting on a wealth of black gold and I don't resent equalization dollars going to other provinces.

What I can't accept is not having a Godamn say in how this country is run.
Elected senate, we can dream on. We don't like the gun registry, too F**CKING bad it's gonna be crammed down our chaw. Kyoto is gonna cause problems with the oil industry, suck it up Alberta, we're only handing out exemptions to the Ontario auto industry.

We have this antiquedated parliament system that makes the opinions of our elected MP's null and void. Central/Atlantic Canada votes in the Liberals and that's what we get an Eastern based governent with an Eastern based cabinet and Eastern based views. That's why an elected Senate is such a big deal in Alberta,to at least allow for the possibility of some balance of power in Ottawa.

The question remains, how long can a nation that is divided into three political regions survive. I would guess this county is in the last 20-30 years of it's life for the simple reason that the powers to be have never come up with a way to distribute power equally among the provinces. People point fingers and laugh at the American republic system but they found a way to distribute power among 50 states (triple E senate) we can't even do it among 10 provinces. Liberals can laugh and Conservatives can whine about last nights result but we are witnessing the beginning of the end of Confederation.
Again. You have the same "Godamn say" as everyone else in this country. You got a gun registry because there are a hell of a lot of social liberals in this country who thought it was a good idea and voted for the party that proposed it. You don't want "a say" in how the country is run -- you seem to want a personal veto over how the country is run when you don't agree with the majority.

I agree with you 100% about Kyoto exemptions. I don't see why exemptions should be granted to anyone.

The opinions of your elected MPs are not null and void. They are worth exactly as much as the opinions of elected MPs from anywhere else. The fact that the Conservative party is not in power is not because Canada is a maladjusted country that wants to keep Alberta under the heel of an Eastern oppressor -- it's because the Conservative party could not keep their right-wing social agenda under wraps trying to convince social liberals to vote for them.

One more note to my separatist interlocutors -- as a non-separatist Quebecer I am absolutely sick to death of hearing people use "we" and "us" to refer to their province. Statements like, "they don't listen to what WE have to say", "WE don't have a say in how the country is run" and "OUR opinion NEVER EVER matters" do not necessarily equate to stating the views of all Albertans. You do not speak for all Albertans. You speak for you. I understand that you're speaking informally on behalf of the 61.64% of Albertans who voted Conservative. But I fail to see why the balance of power in this country needs to be shifted because 61.64% of Albertans (or even 26 out of 28 Albertans) don't get to decide how things work for everybody else.

There is a balance of power -- rep by pop. That balance is not tilted in your favour. That sucks. I totally dig that. Separation will not fix that, it will shift inequities to another level.

To quote Homer, "Don't blame me. *I* voted for Kodos."

.

get yer Aivazoff is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:23 PM
  #82
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
I have read the report. Several times in fact. I am aware that those numbers exxagerate the ammount that Alberta loses, but the fact remains Alberta loses. Do you honestly believe that we NEED to sell our Oil to the other provinces for under Market value??!?!??!!?!? OF COURSE NOT! It is because we are HELPING out "fellow" canadians.
Are you for real? Do you honestly beleive that? Then why does walmart sell everything for low prices? They do it because they can, and everyone buys it when it is lower. Do you think Alberta would have sold the amount of Oil they had if it wasn't at a slightly reduced rate? I doubt it. It was a mutual benefit, Alberta made a financial killing by selling a lot of Oil, and the rest of Canada benefitted because they were able to by some of thier oil at a reduced rate.

Helping out my ass. It was a mutual benefit to both sides.

Quote:
If we wanted we could have simply said, ok, market price, or we'll sell it to the Americans would would ABSOLUTELY love to get more and more oil from Alberta so that they rely less on the middle east for Oil.
Really now... you forgetting things like taxation laws and stuff like that? It costs more to ship the Oil into the States than it does into Canada (factoring everything in), thereby eating into whatever extra money the province made.

Quote:
Don't kid yourself. Confederation is an economical burden on Alberta and a benefit to the rest of confederation (including other western provinces).
Funny... considering the Confederation purchased that land from the Hudson Bay Company (along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan)... but let's not facts get in the way. So technically, Canada still does own the land, and thereby the Oil, which currently represents the province of Alberta.

Quote:
And your post is what I mean entirely about the ungreatful sentiment that you return for us showing compassion and brotherhood with you by giving you big deals of massive % on our main product. It's the lack of thanks that breeds the lack of concern about what we are thinking, and in turn what makes us want to leave so that we each can be left to our own devices.
Ungrateful sentiment?

You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. Selling the Oil at a discounted rate was a benefit to everyone involved. It saved Alberta on the exporting costs (including taxation and shipping), and it saved the rest of Canada from importing the stuff.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Don't think it was some decision out of the goodness of the hear of Albertans, it was a sound business decision, where you maximize your profits, and that maximization was selling internally in Canada, and don't forget that.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:23 PM
  #83
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
But with a triple E senate...(not going to quote whole thing because it would take to much room)
First off.... god forbid if we actually followed the fundamental idea of democracy that MAJORITY RULES. I am all for allowing minorities theire rights - but we should not have to sacrifice central beliefs to appease to them! Where is the line drawn that minorities DON'T dictate to the Majority?
Also, don't forget that results often vary greatly from Senate to house.

I am aware, and agree, that the CPC didn't do a good enough job in this election on the home stretch (although for being only about a half year old they did pretty good against a party that has experienced dominance that hasn't been seen in over 30 years). However, the inability of the people in the east to see the Liberals Scare adds (lies) for what they were are yet one of the things that frustrates me in being a part of this confederation - because how can a people as advanced and educated as we are be so sheepish!?!

Oh, and just a small touch on the whole thing concering the PC parties rule in the 80's/early 90's..... It's rediculous to think that they ruined the country. Trudeau left it in a mess - and while BM wasn't in power when it came about - he set the building blocks to fixing the Liberal created problem (he, not the Liberals). He ushered in a golden age of cooperation with the States and played an important roll in the defeat of communism with Reagan.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:24 PM
  #84
Yanner39
Registered User
 
Yanner39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ottawa ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Last time we had a conservative party in charge of this country, they ran it through the ground.

Tax cuts and more spending aren't a good thing when they incure defecit's, which in turn lead to debt. Harper scares the living crap out of me. He doesn't think half the time before he speaks (Paul Martin supports child pornography?), and the conservatives have this brutal habit of blowing up the areas they govern right from within, and to the point that it requires a drastic bit of action to set things right again.

The Conservatives ruined the country in the 80's, and they've also ripped apart the province of Ontario the past 8 years. So much so, that there was a $5 billion defecit that no one new about until the new budget was released. They even have the gall to chastize Daulton McGuinty for going back on some of his promises in order to fix the mess, but when questioned about the mis-information they provided, they shut-up very quickly.

The Conservatives have run this country, and the Province of Ontario into the ground so much in recent years, that it's not suprising at all that Ontario votes Liberal every chance they get. It's what makes sense here, based on everything we have seen and dealt with.

I don't want our country to get back to the point where the defecit is larger than the GNP of some small countries. I don't want the federal government to simply wipe their hands clean of health care, in terms of their roles and responsibilities of it. Tax cuts are nice, but not at the expense of a future, which is exactly what the Conservatives have come to represent. Go into power, lower all the taxes, run everything into the ground, then let someone else clean up the mess, and as they try to clean it up (which no doubt means raising taxes), the Conservatives stand there and yell from their benches.

Sorry, I don't think so. This country is completely insane sometimes. Instead of riding out the wave, we alternate between under-taxation for happiness of the public, to over-taxation to keep the country economically sound. Then every few years we get tired of one and go with the other, alternating back and forth to the point where we are stuck in a perpetual state of Limbo.

Get the frigging country on track, pump the money into the key areas that need it (Education, Healthcare, debt), then once you have a healthy, functioning country, reduce taxes. Taxes shouldn't be reduced until there is no debt. I agree there has been a lot of wasted money, which is why you get the people responsible for that out (not the whole party, the people directly involved). The country is going to be in the toilet with what Harper had planned... and anyone with any sense of economics could understand that. Unfortunately, you say tax-cuts, and everyone drools, with little to no though about what that means.

Politics go in cycles. Before the Trudeau government, the conservative goverment was running at a surplus and ther canadian $ was worth than the US$. Trudeau's moto was spend spend spend. THe Liberals put the country in a deficit. Why do you think Mulroney introduce the GST. For ***** and giggles? No, it was to get an additional source of revenue to balance de public books and reduce the deficit.

I agree with you that when there are tax cuts, some programs will suffer. THe things is, if your not pissed about about how many taxes you pay after seeing the way the Liberals have been spending the last few years, then I don't get it.

Bottom line, canadians compared to other nations in the world, are over taxed for the amount and quality of services they get.

Yanner39 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:31 PM
  #85
PineJockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: E-Town
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
However, the inability of the people in the east to see the Liberals Scare adds (lies) for what they were are yet one of the things that frustrates me in being a part of this confederation - because how can a people as advanced and educated as we are be so sheepish!?!
Ahhh, yes. The sheep argument. People didn't vote in their own best interest, they were deceived. Sounds alot like Marxism to me, but that is another argument. In terms of sheep, let's not pretend that Alberta voters vote due to in depth analysis of their candidates or the issues. There are more hereditary voters in Alberta than anywhere else in the nation. How else could someone like Rob Anders be elected in a landslide? Fact is, you could dress up a dog in a CPC riding and he would win in southern Alberta - and it is not because the voters are highly educated, or advanced.

Bottom line, the CPC did not make their platform attractive enough to most Canadians.

PineJockey is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:33 PM
  #86
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
First off.... god forbid if we actually followed the fundamental idea of democracy that MAJORITY RULES. I am all for allowing minorities theire rights - but we should not have to sacrifice central beliefs to appease to them! Where is the line drawn that minorities DON'T dictate to the Majority?
Also, don't forget that results often vary greatly from Senate to house.
Majority Rules? What was the popular vote count again?

In case you forgot, nation-wide, it was 36.71% Liberals, 29.61% P.C., 12.4% B.Q., 15.69% NDP.

Either way, the liberals are in power, not sure what all this minority stuff is about.

Quote:
I am aware, and agree, that the CPC didn't do a good enough job in this election on the home stretch (although for being only about a half year old they did pretty good against a party that has experienced dominance that hasn't been seen in over 30 years). However, the inability of the people in the east to see the Liberals Scare adds (lies) for what they were are yet one of the things that frustrates me in being a part of this confederation - because how can a people as advanced and educated as we are be so sheepish!?!
What scare adds and lies?

Harper, as a human being, is immorally reprehensible to me. That has nothing to do with lies and scare adds. Harper's economical ideas didn't make sense (I firmly beleive he felt all of Canada was stupid and his promise of tax cuts would make all Canadians flock like sheep to him), and while I haven't been impressed with the Liberals, they were certainly the lesser of two evils.

Quote:
Oh, and just a small touch on the whole thing concering the PC parties rule in the 80's/early 90's..... It's rediculous to think that they ruined the country. Trudeau left it in a mess - and while BM wasn't in power when it came about - he set the building blocks to fixing the Liberal created problem (he, not the Liberals). He ushered in a golden age of cooperation with the States and played an important roll in the defeat of communism with Reagan.
What building blocks?

He increased the National defecit, and he blew up the National debt to an extraordinary amount. Sorry, it took the Liberals less than 4 years to balance a budget that Mulroney had done nothing but inflate for 8 years.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:38 PM
  #87
get yer Aivazoff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a little left of centre
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
First off.... god forbid if we actually followed the fundamental idea of democracy that MAJORITY RULES. I am all for allowing minorities theire rights - but we should not have to sacrifice central beliefs to appease to them! Where is the line drawn that minorities DON'T dictate to the Majority?
huuuuuh? Put yourself in the position of a Liberal-voting easterner for a second, and re-read your post. Anything funny strike you? How about -- why should the majority of Canada who believe in a progressive, leftist social environment bend over to appease a minority consisting mostly of Albertans?

.

get yer Aivazoff is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:39 PM
  #88
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Are you for real? Do you honestly beleive that? Then why does walmart sell everything for low prices? They do it because they can, and everyone buys it when it is lower. Do you think Alberta would have sold the amount of Oil they had if it wasn't at a slightly reduced rate? I doubt it. It was a mutual benefit, Alberta made a financial killing by selling a lot of Oil, and the rest of Canada benefitted because they were able to by some of thier oil at a reduced rate.

Helping out my ass. It was a mutual benefit to both sides.

Really now... you forgetting things like taxation laws and stuff like that? It costs more to ship the Oil into the States than it does into Canada (factoring everything in), thereby eating into whatever extra money the province made.
WOW , are you serious? You don't think that the US would take all of what Eastern Canada was and more? And at set market prices?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Funny... considering the Confederation purchased that land from the Hudson Bay Company (along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan)... but let's not facts get in the way. So technically, Canada still does own the land, and thereby the Oil, which currently represents the province of Alberta.
You say that like Ontario err, I mean the Feds own the Alberta. Hmm can't figure out which part of the eastern attitude offends me more - the I'm entitled or the I'm in charge

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Ungrateful sentiment?

You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. Selling the Oil at a discounted rate was a benefit to everyone involved. It saved Alberta on the exporting costs (including taxation and shipping), and it saved the rest of Canada from importing the stuff.
So just out of curiosity, which location is more expensive to ship to, Chicago via pipeline accross the prairies or Toronto via pipe line through the Canadian Sheild? Or were youtalking about shipping via Fed Ex?

Conversely, how much was saved by the East by not dealing with the actual shipping of Oil (mind you PM would have made a bundle with CSL) and by not paying market price?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Don't think it was some decision out of the goodness of the hear of Albertans, it was a sound business decision, where you maximize your profits, and that maximization was selling internally in Canada, and don't forget that.
Let's clarify, it was simply participating in the confederation. Don't fool yourself into thinking the Oil wouldn't have been moved elsewhere. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it would have cost the East less than it would have cost Alberta had the deal not been struck.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:39 PM
  #89
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
But with a triple E senate, the liberals would have a strict majority of seats (I think it breaks down to 4 Conservatives, 8 Liberals, and 1Block if you split it up by provinces/territories).

As I said before, I think that the west is distorting the facts as to why people out East are not voting for the Conservatives. The reason I didn't vote for them (and most of my friends) is not because the Liberals buy my vote it was two reasons.

1)Conservatives would run up a deficit. I defy people to come up with where money would come for the billions in tax cuts

2)Civil liberties. I'm sorry - but I support the Supreme court sticking up for minorities and saying to government "it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants to discriminate, it isn't going to happen"

Neither of these two items have anything to do with East vs West. I lived in Edmonton/Vancouver for years, and didn't like the Aliance when I was there! Until western parties (and the conservatives are that) realize that they can't have right wing socially conservative platforms and win... they will loose IMO, not because they are western, but because the ideas are repugnant to many Eastern voters.
As the American system has shown many times in past voters their are quite often reluctant to give power to one party on both sides of the house (the current slim Republican control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate is the exception not the rule). Besides if you take out the territories your left with a 4-5-1 count.

Tax cuts without a deficit is not some fantasy realm. You get an increase in GDP due to the positive financial aspects of the cuts and then you act with some courage and remove wasteful programs and redundant departments. I've worked for the Federal governement and I still at times have to work with various goverment departments. If taxpayers knew how some of their money is truly wasted they would sharpen their pitchforks and head for the capital. I could walk into any goverment department (save health, eduacation or military) and cut 10% of budget and you no one would notice it. Here are some "Canadian Values" expenditures I've witnessed in the last 2-3 years.

- Attended a financial lending conference that had probably 45% attendance from the public lending insititutions who make up about 7% of the commerical lending pie.
- Watched a federal department pay $25,000 to a consultant to come up with ideas for a website, not create it, just conceptualize it.
- Had a client who was paid $45,000 to print brochures for a federal department that changed it's name 6 months later and ordered another $45,000 in brochures
- Went to a public sector conference that hired Rex Murphy for a lunchtime speech.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:44 PM
  #90
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
Tax cuts without a deficit is not some fantasy realm. You get an increase in GDP due to the positive financial aspects of the cuts and then you act with some courage and remove wasteful programs and redundant departments. I've worked for the Federal governement and I still at times have to work with various goverment departments. If taxpayers knew how some of their money is truly wasted they would sharpen their pitchforks and head for the capital. I could walk into any goverment department (save health, eduacation or military) and cut 10% of budget and you no one would notice it. Here are some "Canadian Values" expenditures I've witnessed in the last 2-3 years.

- Attended a financial lending conference that had probably 45% attendance from the public lending insititutions who make up about 7% of the commerical lending pie.
- Watched a federal department pay $25,000 to a consultant to come up with ideas for a website, not create it, just conceptualize it.
- Had a client who was paid $45,000 to print brochures for a federal department that changed it's name 6 months later and ordered another $45,000 in brochures
- Went to a public sector conference that hired Rex Murphy for a lunchtime speech.
That's all on the assumption that wasteful spending would truely be eliminated... and that is a pipe dream.

With government spending there will always be wasted spending. There is too much money and too many people for it not to happen.

If there is a surplus of $9 billion, and you want to spend an extra $15 billion on something, the math isn't complicated. You certainly can't do it by decreasing taxes... and sorry, the P.C.'s (as evident here in Ontario) aren't that much more careful than the Liberals in terms of their spending (in terms of waste).

The economics just don't add up, and they don't to the average person.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:44 PM
  #91
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Are you for real? Do you honestly beleive that? Then why does walmart sell everything for low prices? They do it because they can, and everyone buys it when it is lower. Do you think Alberta would have sold the amount of Oil they had if it wasn't at a slightly reduced rate? I doubt it. It was a mutual benefit, Alberta made a financial killing by selling a lot of Oil, and the rest of Canada benefitted because they were able to by some of thier oil at a reduced rate.
First off, on political subjects- I think we need to cool off a bit (all of us... myself included because I think we all respect each other on this board, excluding a few specific posters enough to maintain decency, which I myself am more often guilty of not maintaining then others)

Walmart sells everything at low prices to increase the amoint of sales, which in turn creates less competition, which in turn will create more profits. Alberta has no competitor in the western world for Oil. Alberta sold the Oil that the market demanded - do you honestly believe that we wouldn't have sold our Oil if we didn't give you a cheap rate? honestly... do you? The NEED is still there. It's not like buying banana's from some small country - it's buying an essential product that you have NO choice but to bite the bullet and pay for.

Really now... you forgetting things like taxation laws and stuff like that? It costs more to ship the Oil into the States than it does into Canada (factoring everything in), thereby eating into whatever extra money the province made.
THANK YOU. You just helped my arguement for seperation. Those "taxation laws and stuff like that" would come ONLY from our OWN government that Trudeau (with his NEP) inacted to create a market where Alberta needs can/should sell in Canada, instead of the USA. NAFTA means that the Americans wouldn't have any terrifs or taxations on our Oil (they NEED it, they WANT it, they aren't going to add a barrier to receiving it). Trudeau's NEP

Funny... considering the Confederation purchased that land from the Hudson Bay Company (along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan)... but let's not facts get in the way. So technically, Canada still does own the land, and thereby the Oil, which currently represents the province of Alberta.
Funny, accoring to the treaty of Paris Ontario and Quebec's land and recources belong to the queen's government in London. Thing is, that is null and void now as we are now full provinces, promised and guarenteed equal rights and abilites inside confederation as Ontario and Quebec.


Ungrateful sentiment?

You believe that it is YOUR right to our assets as you have stated in this post. If that is how Canada feels (which is the case) then I feel I don't want to be a part of Canada, and we, like any other province have the ability to leave confederation.


You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. Selling the Oil at a discounted rate was a benefit to everyone involved. It saved Alberta on the exporting costs (including taxation and shipping), and it saved the rest of Canada from importing the stuff.

Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Don't think it was some decision out of the goodness of the hear of Albertans, it was a sound business decision, where you maximize your profits, and that maximization was selling internally in Canada, and don't forget that.

Once again... WHY did it save Alberta exporting costs? BECAUSE Ontario's government (The Federal Government) made it that way! The Americans would GLADLY buy our Oil for MARKET price without any kind of tarrifs, and they would GLADLY build pipeline after pipleline after pipeline to ship it (effectively making shipping a NON FACTOR for us). You are stating benefits that are created because the government has created detriments to Alberta. It's like going into a store and telling them they have to pay this, this, and this if they dont' sell their shirt to you... so THEREFORE they should sell the shirt to you because it would save you money because of this, this, and this. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS!?!?

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:49 PM
  #92
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
That's all on the assumption that wasteful spending would truely be eliminated... and that is a pipe dream.

With government spending there will always be wasted spending. There is too much money and too many people for it not to happen.

If there is a surplus of $9 billion, and you want to spend an extra $15 billion on something, the math isn't complicated. You certainly can't do it by decreasing taxes... and sorry, the P.C.'s (as evident here in Ontario) aren't that much more careful than the Liberals in terms of their spending (in terms of waste).

The economics just don't add up, and they don't to the average person.
This provincal to Federal comparison of Party's is ABSOLUTE BULL!
Ralph Klein follows these ideas, and he's made Alberta into the most powerful entity outside of the Federal government in Canada. We are wealthy beyond compare in Alberta to any other province. SO much so that we can continually give, give, give and STILL be a HAVE province.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 04:54 PM
  #93
HotToddy
Registered User
 
HotToddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PineJockey
Ahhh, yes. The sheep argument. People didn't vote in their own best interest, they were deceived. Sounds alot like Marxism to me, but that is another argument. In terms of sheep, let's not pretend that Alberta voters vote due to in depth analysis of their candidates or the issues. There are more hereditary voters in Alberta than anywhere else in the nation. How else could someone like Rob Anders be elected in a landslide? Fact is, you could dress up a dog in a CPC riding and he would win in southern Alberta - and it is not because the voters are highly educated, or advanced.

Bottom line, the CPC did not make their platform attractive enough to most Canadians.
Your absolutely right, Albertans will consistently vote Conservative and quite often as a protest vote towards Ottawa. The problem is not that the East votes Liberal, the problem is that Ontario and Quebecers DECIDE the election. Conferderation has not been properly set up to stop the concentration of power from the population rich Central Canada. You see the Americans realized early on that the political sway of populous states could create animosity and tear at the Republic. That's why they created electoral systems like the triple E senate and the electoral college. Canada hasn't done this and as result Albertans feel left out of the process come election time. It's easy too say, "come up with policies that the East like" or "vote in Liberal" but that's the crux of the problem. Easterners can view both parties platforms and choose the one that suits them. Westerners don't get that choice we're stuck with what Central Canada wants for government.

And I will remind you that Alberta has the most educated populace in the country.

HotToddy is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:00 PM
  #94
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Majority Rules? What was the popular vote count again?

In case you forgot, nation-wide, it was 36.71% Liberals, 29.61% P.C., 12.4% B.Q., 15.69% NDP.

Either way, the liberals are in power, not sure what all this minority stuff is about.
I was talking about the topic on Harper being willing to act with the not-withstanding so that an issue where the vast majority of the people in Canada are having their ideals counter-acted by a judge (appointed non-the-less, not elected by you and me and given our graces to decide what is right and wrong) and his determination of a piece of paper can be stopped.


Quote:
What scare adds and lies?
Women crying and quivering in hospital rooms?
Harper teaming up with the Bloc?

Jesus man- did you watch the follow up to the election on CBC last night where even the Liberal rep. talked about and was fulling aware about the scare adds/tactics!?!?!?!

Quote:
Harper, as a human being, is immorally reprehensible to me. That has nothing to do with lies and scare adds. Harper's economical ideas didn't make sense (I firmly beleive he felt all of Canada was stupid and his promise of tax cuts would make all Canadians flock like sheep to him), and while I haven't been impressed with the Liberals, they were certainly the lesser of two evils.
If Harpers economics don't make sense why is Alberta so rich? We should be plunging into debt and devestation.


Quote:
What building blocks?

He increased the National defecit, and he blew up the National debt to an extraordinary amount. Sorry, it took the Liberals less than 4 years to balance a budget that Mulroney had done nothing but inflate for 8 years.
Anybody who knows politics knows that actions can't be judged until the future. What we saw in economy in the early/mid 90's was because of what BM did with NAFTA and GST in the 80's. What we saw early in the millenium with a resession, was because of what the Liberalsdid in the early/mid 90's.

Go to a university, find a professor of economics that isn't affiliated with any party and I can guarentee you that 99 times out of 100 they will say that Canada's wealth in the mid 90's was thanks to the actions taken by the PCs in teh 80's. The resession in the 00's wasthanks to the actions taken by the Liberals in the mid 90's.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:02 PM
  #95
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotToddy
Your absolutely right, Albertans will consistently vote Conservative and quite often as a protest vote towards Ottawa. The problem is not that the East votes Liberal, the problem is that Ontario and Quebecers DECIDE the election. Conferderation has not been properly set up to stop the concentration of power from the population rich Central Canada. You see the Americans realized early on that the political sway of populous states could create animosity and tear at the Republic. That's why they created electoral systems like the triple E senate and the electoral college. Canada hasn't done this and as result Albertans feel left out of the process come election time. It's easy too say, "come up with policies that the East like" or "vote in Liberal" but that's the crux of the problem. Easterners can view both parties platforms and choose the one that suits them. Westerners don't get that choice we're stuck with what Central Canada wants for government.

And I will remind you that Alberta has the most educated populace in the country.
My oh my, I never thought the day would come when Me and dawg would be scrappin and I'd beon your side

But yes, you're completely right. The east doesn't want to see this.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:06 PM
  #96
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
First off.... god forbid if we actually followed the fundamental idea of democracy that MAJORITY RULES. I am all for allowing minorities theire rights - but we should not have to sacrifice central beliefs to appease to them! Where is the line drawn that minorities DON'T dictate to the Majority?
Also, don't forget that results often vary greatly from Senate to house.

I am aware, and agree, that the CPC didn't do a good enough job in this election on the home stretch (although for being only about a half year old they did pretty good against a party that has experienced dominance that hasn't been seen in over 30 years). However, the inability of the people in the east to see the Liberals Scare adds (lies) for what they were are yet one of the things that frustrates me in being a part of this confederation - because how can a people as advanced and educated as we are be so sheepish!?!

Oh, and just a small touch on the whole thing concering the PC parties rule in the 80's/early 90's..... It's rediculous to think that they ruined the country. Trudeau left it in a mess - and while BM wasn't in power when it came about - he set the building blocks to fixing the Liberal created problem (he, not the Liberals). He ushered in a golden age of cooperation with the States and played an important roll in the defeat of communism with Reagan.
Excuse me, but stop calling me a sheep. I have read every party platform, and am as aware as I can be about making a decision. I am well educated, am starting a PhD in September, and grew up in the Alberta. MY IDEAS ARE RELEVANT. They may not be right, but they are well thought out.

With respect to the Conservative tax cuts, any reference I found from the conservatives about how they would pay for them were in my estimation far too optomistic, and smacked of the same optimism as tax cuts in the past (does anyone remember Reagans trickle down economics... in theory they would pay for themselves.)

Secondly show me a statement that they would not try to restrict gay marriage. I scoured their web site, and statements in the rpess, and at best they said they thought parliament should get the final say in the matter. Well that's not good enough for me.

You can say that you oppose gay marriage... that's cool, we'll have a debate, but these statements that somehow my beliefs are being force fed to me by the media, or come because I want to screw the west are so insulting.

oil slick is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:07 PM
  #97
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
As I said before, I think that the west is distorting the facts as to why people out East are not voting for the Conservatives. The reason I didn't vote for them (and most of my friends) is not because the Liberals buy my vote it was two reasons.

1)Conservatives would run up a deficit. I defy people to come up with where money would come for the billions in tax cuts
So here are a couple questions,

If you are basing a decision on the idea of Tax cuts being a falsehood, why then aren't you up in arms over the Liberals for lying about the elimination of the GST from their first election?

Also, publicly we are aware of billions worth of misappropriated funds under the Liberals charge. How much are we not aware of, how much fat is there in their program spending, how much redundancy is there in the government offices and why is it so unbelievable given the scandles that have been brought to light to think that there isn't money to be found in the government as it exists today?

Just an example of a type of tax cut that would be implimented, the feds currently tax gasoline on a percentage basis (I admit that I do not recall off hand what the percentage is but for the example I will use 20%). If gasoline is at 70 cents/litre they would get 14 cents. One of the proposed tax cuts (politiking the phrase) was to have a flat tax over a certain cost per litre. Right now with gas hovering around 80 cents a litre and assuming (for the example) the tax limit was 75 cents we would be saving 1 cent per litre in taxes. If the cost of gas soared to 1.00 /litre (as predicted) then the savings would be 6 cents/litre.

It is a "tax cut" that doesn't affect the existing revenue base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
2)Civil liberties. I'm sorry - but I support the Supreme court sticking up for minorities and saying to government "it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants to discriminate, it isn't going to happen"
I keep hearing this thrown out, I am curious as to which liberties exactly you are referring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
... they will loose IMO, not because they are western, but because the ideas are repugnant to many Eastern voters.
And this is the crux, at the end of the day Eastern interests are served because the Eastern Provinces are the deciding factor in who is elected.

The problem is that Western interests are not the same as Eastern interests and there isn't thing one we can do about it.

And yes, in my case, this is almost all about money and the lack of say the west has in how it is spent.

copperandblue is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:14 PM
  #98
thome_26
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,853
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to thome_26
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
Excuse me, but stop calling me a sheep. I have read every party platform, and am as aware as I can be about making a decision. I am well educated, am starting a PhD in September, and grew up in the Alberta. MY IDEAS ARE RELEVANT. They may not be right, but they are well thought out.

With respect to the Conservative tax cuts, any reference I found from the conservatives about how they would pay for them were in my estimation far too optomistic, and smacked of the same optimism as tax cuts in the past (does anyone remember Reagans trickle down economics... in theory they would pay for themselves.)

Secondly show me a statement that they would not try to restrict gay marriage. I scoured their web site, and statements in the rpess, and at best they said they thought parliament should get the final say in the matter. Well that's not good enough for me.

You can say that you oppose gay marriage... that's cool, we'll have a debate, but these statements that somehow my beliefs are being force fed to me by the media, or come because I want to screw the west are so insulting.
And to you I apologize. I tried to say that I wasn't implying every liberal vote wasn't well thought out and informed. I didn't do NEARLY a good enough job of stating that. But I'm sure you would agree that the majority of Liberal votes were made because of the scare tactics and believing the Liberal adds and falling for the images of crying women and Harper being a pro-sovereignist.

thome_26 is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:15 PM
  #99
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by thome_26
Walmart sells everything at low prices to increase the amoint of sales, which in turn creates less competition, which in turn will create more profits. Alberta has no competitor in the western world for Oil. Alberta sold the Oil that the market demanded - do you honestly believe that we wouldn't have sold our Oil if we didn't give you a cheap rate? honestly... do you? The NEED is still there. It's not like buying banana's from some small country - it's buying an essential product that you have NO choice but to bite the bullet and pay for.
Alberta might have sold Oil, but maybe not to the extent that they did, especially in the time frame that was brought up in the report. The fact of the matter is that while Oil is a need, it's a need serviced everywhere, and if you can make more money somewhere you make it somewhere. Alberta made a hell of a lot of money in Canada because it was beneficial to both sides. It's not like the only Oil that Canada uses comes from Alberta. If Canada had wanted to, they could have removed all taxes that Oil suppliers had to pay to get their Oil into Canada... there were options, just not as mutually beneficial as the one that saw Alberta sell Oil within Canada at a slightly reduced rate.

Quote:
THANK YOU. You just helped my arguement for seperation. Those "taxation laws and stuff like that" would come ONLY from our OWN government that Trudeau (with his NEP) inacted to create a market where Alberta needs can/should sell in Canada, instead of the USA. NAFTA means that the Americans wouldn't have any terrifs or taxations on our Oil (they NEED it, they WANT it, they aren't going to add a barrier to receiving it). Trudeau's NEP
Actually the cost to export comes from tarrifs placed on it by the country that is importing. Don't forget, the United States has very big Oil reserves in both Alaska and Texas. They don't come from the government of Canada, because if you don't sell the Oil, it doesn't do the country any good. We've already seen what the United States will do with soft lumber and beef when it suits their need, they'll do the same thing to Oil if they see fit.

Quote:
Funny, accoring to the treaty of Paris Ontario and Quebec's land and recources belong to the queen's government in London. Thing is, that is null and void now as we are now full provinces, promised and guarenteed equal rights and abilites inside confederation as Ontario and Quebec.
key word... inside the confederation. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were creations of the Federal government from Canadian territory. This isn't Quebec or Newfoundland who opted into some agreement. Alberta, and it's land, are part of Canada... I still don't see where you think that Alberta can just take the lines marked on the map and say TA-DA.

Quote:
You believe that it is YOUR right to our assets as you have stated in this post. If that is how Canada feels (which is the case) then I feel I don't want to be a part of Canada, and we, like any other province have the ability to leave confederation.
My right? Where in the blue hell did you get this from? I don't drive out to Alberta, scoop up a bucket of Oil and drive back to Ontario here. I have a significantly higher cost of living than most of Canada, I pay high insurance and gas prices as the rest of Canada, pay as much taxes as anyone else in Canada, and the industry I work in generates more money than any other industry in Canada (IT)... it's not my right to anything, I have to pay and work for everything I get, which isn't much different from you. So let's not get confused about rights and assets. First and foremost, Alberta is part of Canada. Alberta benefits a hell of a lot from Ontario, as does the rest of Canada. Ontario is where most of your goods are bought (including things like Beef and Petroleum). Alberta does more business with Ontario than it does with the rest of the world combined...

Do the people of Alberta really want to end that relationship?

Quote:
Once again... WHY did it save Alberta exporting costs? BECAUSE Ontario's government (The Federal Government) made it that way! The Americans would GLADLY buy our Oil for MARKET price without any kind of tarrifs, and they would GLADLY build pipeline after pipleline after pipeline to ship it (effectively making shipping a NON FACTOR for us).
It saves exporting costs because Alberta has to ship it and pay to get it into another country... and the Federal government doesn't control that.

Just like the Americans would gladly import the soft lumber from B.C.? Or will always buy beef from Alberta?

That is a huge assumption on your part, and a dangerous one I might add. The United States still produces all the Oil it needs, and they will always get it at the best possible price, whether it's from Alberta or Iraq.

Quote:
You are stating benefits that are created because the government has created detriments to Alberta. It's like going into a store and telling them they have to pay this, this, and this if they dont' sell their shirt to you... so THEREFORE they should sell the shirt to you because it would save you money because of this, this, and this. DO YOU NOT SEE THIS!?!?
No I don't... please show me what the Federal government charges Alberta to export their Oil. What are these detriments?

The frigging country was built on farmlands, and back when Alberta was nothing but a flat pile of dirt with no economy, it was brought into the confederation where it developed.

You are like the frigging kids who win the lottery and now are laughing at your parents as you run out of the house saying you're rich you're rich.

What's going to happen next? In 20 years is Northern Alberta going to want to separate from Southern Alberta because Northern Alberta is sick of funding the south?

That's what this is... Alberta has a little bit more than some of the other provinces, so they want to skip out and keep everything they have... nice.

Alberta certainly isn't hurting by any stretch of the imagination. They will be the first province in Canada to be debt free. They have some of the best cost of living and employment rates in the country. You guys certainly aren't hurting at all.

Gee it's too Bad Ontario never ditched the rest of the country before, or that 100 years ago Ontario funded most of the railroad that allowed Alberta to survive by giving them a lifeline out to the East in order for them to sell their livestock.

Talk about ungrateful sentiment. When Alberta was poor, it was okay for the rest of the Country to keep them afloat, but not the other way around.


Last edited by dawgbone: 06-29-2004 at 05:20 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-29-2004, 05:15 PM
  #100
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
So here are a couple questions,

If you are basing a decision on the idea of Tax cuts being a falsehood, why then aren't you up in arms over the Liberals for lying about the elimination of the GST from their first election?
No, read my position. I said the tax cuts would run a deficit. We as a country have run up a hell of a debt, and I think its time for us to pay. I don't mind the GST at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Also, publicly we are aware of billions worth of misappropriated funds under the Liberals charge. How much are we not aware of, how much fat is there in their program spending, how much redundancy is there in the government offices and why is it so unbelievable given the scandles that have been brought to light to think that there isn't money to be found in the government as it exists today?
From the stats I've seen. The sponsorship scandal cost well less than 100 million (100 million is the total spent). Chump change. The gun registry is more but again well less than a billion a year, again chump change compared to the 16 billion dollars tax cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue
Just an example of a type of tax cut that would be implimented, the feds currently tax gasoline on a percentage basis (I admit that I do not recall off hand what the percentage is but for the example I will use 20%). If gasoline is at 70 cents/litre they would get 14 cents. One of the proposed tax cuts (politiking the phrase) was to have a flat tax over a certain cost per litre. Right now with gas hovering around 80 cents a litre and assuming (for the example) the tax limit was 75 cents we would be saving 1 cent per litre in taxes. If the cost of gas soared to 1.00 /litre (as predicted) then the savings would be 6 cents/litre.

It is a "tax cut" that doesn't affect the existing revenue base.



I keep hearing this thrown out, I am curious as to which liberties exactly you are referring?
Gay marriage
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue

And this is the crux, at the end of the day Eastern interests are served because the Eastern Provinces are the deciding factor in who is elected.

The problem is that Western interests are not the same as Eastern interests and there isn't thing one we can do about it.

And yes, in my case, this is almost all about money and the lack of say the west has in how it is spent.

oil slick is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.