Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

The article was primarily about Chretien throwing around the words "share" and "resources" in the same sentence. Which is extremely alarming to any Albertan who knows his history. Surely you would know that, right?

Yes I forgot how the words "share" creates terror in Albertans, unless of course share refers to kicking the poor out into other provinces in which case Albertans seem perfectly happy with the idea of sharing these people.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes I forgot how the words "share" creates terror in Albertans, unless of course share refers to kicking the poor out into other provinces in which case Albertans seem perfectly happy with the idea of sharing these people.

You're either a horrible comedian or one really stupid guy.

I'm not even sure what you're alluding to, considering most of the "poor" people from neighboring provinces have been coming to Alberta for better job prospects anyway (net migration of 10,000 from BC alone last year).

[notyoueither]

Share? Great concept. When is Ontario going to 'share' the tax revenue from the auto plants? When is Quebec going to 'share' the revenues from Hydro? Opps, forgot. They're too busy screwing Newfoundland out of Hydro revenues to be able to 'share' with the rest of us.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
I'm not even sure what you're alluding to, considering most of the "poor" people from neighboring provinces have been coming to Alberta for better job prospects anyway (net migration of 10,000 from BC alone last year).

I'm talking about people who cannot work, the people who are on welfare because of physical or mental disabilities. The Albertan government cuts welfare payments to these people and then gives them money if they leave the province.

BC and Ontario ends up taking care of these people.

As for Ontario not sharing its wealth, give me a break. For decades, Ontario was carrying the load providing the most money for transfer payments. If that has changed in recent years then it is news to me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I'm talking about people who cannot work, the people who are on welfare because of physical or mental disabilities. The Albertan government cuts welfare payments to these people and then gives them money if they leave the province.

BC and Ontario ends up taking care of these people.

That's quite an ingenius plan.

Do you have some links for figures on how common this in?

Just a hunch that you're blowing this way out of proportion, and not more than maybe 50-100 people a year do this.

NDPers tend to do that, I've found. You take one person and blow it into a big "the sky is falling" scare.

As for Ontario not sharing its wealth, give me a break. For decades, Ontario was carrying the load providing the most money for transfer payments. If that has changed in recent years then it is news to me.

Why don't you look at it as proportion of revenue?

Raw figures for Ontario are incredibly misleading, because of the massive figures it accounts for itself in every area (population, GDP, etc).

Per capita, Alberta puts in far more than any other province, last time I checked.

And do you mind explaining to me why it's unfair to ask other provinces to share their resources and revenue when you ask Alberta to?

(I wonder why Albertans don't like the NDP line of thought!)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
And do you mind explaining to me why it's unfair to ask other provinces to share their resources and revenue when you ask Alberta to?

Did I say it was unfair? What I was objecting to was the Albertan propaganda that only Albertans are asked to cough up for the other provinces. Ontario contributes as does, to a lesser extent, British Columbia.

The problem with Albertans is that they have a short memory. They forget that there was a time when the rest of the country was helping them. Now that they are rich, the Albertans dump their problems on the rest of the country and then get greedy and refuse to share.

Ontarians, on the other hand, have always been willing to help out the rest of the country.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Did I say it was unfair? What I was objecting to was the Albertan propaganda that only Albertans are asked to cough up for the other provinces. Ontario contributes as does, to a lesser extent, British Columbia.

Hehe...I believe nye and I were both referring to the NEP policy that the article I cited was hinting at and discussing, not equalization payments today per se.

The problem with Albertans is that they have a short memory. They forget that there was a time when the rest of the country was helping them. Now that they are rich, the Albertans dump their problems on the rest of the country and then get greedy and refuse to share.

For FIVE YEARS, back in the late fifties. And it wasn't much, at all. Again, blowing out of proportion. In fact, Ontario changed the equalization payment laws such that Alberta stopped receiving those payments!

Ontarians, on the other hand, have always been willing to help out the rest of the country.

Yes, because they don't help out very much at all in reality.

Look at this graph of government revenue per capita. Notice how Ontario is barely above the line? That means you don't give much per person, at all. Notice the huge gap in Alberta's? Figure that out.



This means roughly $2000, PER CAPITA, in Alberta is going to other provinces, and has been for decades. Surely this wouldn't be a problem if Ottawa didn't keep giving Alberta the finger politically. But since they decide to take the money and still treat the province like sh*t, it begins to be annoying.

Now, 10.8B in equalization payments were distributed in 2000 (source: http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/equalization.html).

$2000 * 3,000,000 people = $6B in lost Revenue from Alberta.

That means Alberta pays for $6B of the $10.8B total transfer payments.

So how does that figure into Ontario paying the brunt of it, in raw figures *OR* in per capita? IT DOESN'T.

[Asher]

Some more up to date figures. The chart above was from 1999, this one is 2001/2002


Ontario and Alberta are the only provinces actually GIVING money to the "have not" provinces.

Roughly $8500 per capita is collected through Alberta now. The "standard" is $5869. This means Alberta is now paying $2631 per Capita away to other provinces. Or $7.9B.

$10.3B was given out in payments in 2001-2002.
That means, Alberta alone accounted for $7.9B/$10.3B of the payments!

Or if you prefer percents, 77%!

This is getting ridiculous, no?

So you can cut the crap about Ontario giving its share. Ontario is giving MILK MONEY and Alberta is giving Ferraris.

Despite all this, keep in mind Alberta only gets 26 seats in the house, out of 301. Or 8.6% of the seats.

[notyoueither]

Actually Asher. I don't mind sharing the wealth. We're still doing well, right?

What I do mind is the crap that the ROC throws back in our faces after the fact. That makes it very hard to take. It's almost like being smacked in the face after the other is done.

Would it be too much to ask if Alberta's contributions to Confederation could be acknowledged, and Albertans not be derided simply for being blessed? You know, it really grows tiresome after a while.

If it were only that the people of this forum were the problem. Oh if it were! Unfortunately, that is not the case. Unfortunately, the attitudes reflected on this forum by 'other' Canadians are far too close to the reality of other Canadians IRL.

Do you really want Alberta to tell you where to shove it? For real?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Hehe...I believe nye and I were both referring to the NEP policy that the article I cited was hinting at and discussing, not equalization payments today per se.

Yes, we're all quite aware that you were talking about the NEP. In any discussion about Canada, Albertans always whine and whine about this 20-year-old policy. Sometimes I think Alberta has a law that requires its residents to whine about the NEP on a daily basis.


Asher: I believe you misunderstand how the equalization system works. The $8,500 per capita figure for Alberta represents how much the Albertan government can raise in taxes. It does not represent contributions to the equalization program.

AFAIK, the equalization program is financed through federal taxes paid by all Canadians. A portion of the federal revenue is then passed on to qualifying provinces in the form of equalization payments.

So to measure contributions to the equalization system, it would be fairer to measure contribution to the federal tax revenues.

In terms of income tax, Ontario residents pay $6,208 per capita while Albertans pay $6,180 per capita. So we pretty much contribute the same amount on a per capita basis.

But looking at the big picture, Ontario pays 44 per cent of federal income tax. If that tax is diverted through equalization payments then Ontario finances $4.7 billion of the payments while Alberta only pays 11 per cent of the equalization payments, just $1.2 billion.

So Ontario does indeed pay the lion share of the equalization payment system.

One difference is that I don't complain about it. I agree with NYE. Some Albertans on the other hand...

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Asher
Despite all this, keep in mind Alberta only gets 26 seats in the house, out of 301. Or 8.6% of the seats.

Seats aren't based on money, but population.

And also, Asher, it's not like you're giving money to those maritime provinces, it's the oil companies that are responsible for that. Ontario's above the average capacity because it has a strong economy; Alberta just has oil.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The biggest problems facing economic growth in the Maritimes are the brain drain and the conservative culture in this region. Maritime entreprenuers routinely leave the east for better prospects in Ontario and the west. The conservative culture acts as a break on new ideas. These factors are changing, but remain influencial.

It seems to me that a brain drain and a culture that acts as a brake on new ideas could adequately be described as a culture of defeatism.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Echinda
It seems to me that a brain drain and a culture that acts as a brake on new ideas could adequately be described as a culture of defeatism.

One of the points I have tried to made is even if there is a culture of defeatism, a political leader should never say that bluntly. There is a question of tact and political sauve (sp?). Harper could have said something like: "The policies of the Liberals are destroying our hope and optimism. The CA policies announced today will allow the hard-kept hope and entrepreneurial spirit of the Maritime people to flourish. We will remove the barriers that are limit economic growth in the Maritimes."

Pure BS of course, but that is what a great politician does. Look at Ronald Reagan. As much as I hate the guy's policies, I have to give him credit for being able to say the right thing to build up the hope of the American people.

[Garth Vader]

It pleases me when any politician speaks the truth, no matter how clumsy he is at it.

[Tingkai]

The problem is, he didn't necessarily speak the truth. Maritimers tend to be conservative in the sense that they want to keep their existing way of life. That might be foolish, but it doesn't mean they are defeatist.

[- Groucho -]

The amount of emigration from the maritimes seems like pretty good evidence that people feel like they can't win if they stay. It also seems that the prevailing attitude among young maritimers is that generally you have to get out to get ahead (unless you're a ticketed underwater welder or have some other Hibernia-centric skill).

As for whether Harper was politically savvy in making the statement ... Well, I for one would rather politicians said what they thought, rather than, like Reagan, say all the things people want to hear and then run illegal Iran-contra style operations on the side.

[Tingkai]

But if there was a culture of defeatism, wouldn't people just stay put and say what's the point?

[- Groucho -]

That would be "utter-abject-ultra defeatism."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Yes, we're all quite aware that you were talking about the NEP. In any discussion about Canada, Albertans always whine and whine about this 20-year-old policy. Sometimes I think Alberta has a law that requires its residents to whine about the NEP on a daily basis.

The article was about how Chretien was using the same words that ignited the NEP years ago -- a government HE was a part of.

You're being quite hypocritical if you blame the CA for not knowing what they're saying if you can't figure out why this is a BadThing.

Asher: I believe you misunderstand how the equalization system works. The $8,500 per capita figure for Alberta represents how much the Albertan government can raise in taxes. It does not represent contributions to the equalization program.

The way I understood it, and the way the Canadian government explains it on their website, is on average, per capita, Albertans invested $8,500 in tax (much of this is obviously from Alberta's resource revenue, NOT direct income tax like you're trying to slant it to be). In order to make sure that every province has the same government revenue per capita, the average is found and all of the provinces making above that (now only Ontario and Alberta, Alberta by far) are basically giving $2600 per person away to other provinces. Far higher than any other province.

It was a neat trick how to tried to play this on only income tax, when you know a good portion of Alberta's revenue system is not based on income tax but rather resource revenue, which is why that $8500 figure is so high.

So Ontario does indeed pay the lion share of the equalization payment system.

The Canadian government's website clearly disagrees with you.

Feel free to find me figures and links that disagree with these...

One difference is that I don't complain about it. I agree with NYE. Some Albertans on the other hand...

I do mind sharing. Why should Alberta pay for Newfoundland's eqaulization for 52 years in a row? It's not a temporary measure, it's a constant money hole. Why did we even let Newfoundland in the country, anyway?

But looking at the big picture, Ontario pays 44 per cent of federal income tax. If that tax is diverted through equalization payments then Ontario finances $4.7 billion of the payments while Alberta only pays 11 per cent of the equalization payments, just $1.2 billion.

Your figures don't even add up to the total transfer payments paid...

[David James]

I've got an absolutely revolutionary idea ... let's try to stay on topic. I know it's difficult for some of us here

Who's going to win this one? Is Chretien going to survive the leadership review next February? If he does, what then? If he doesn't, who, other than Martin, will run for the Liberal leadership? Who will Chretien support?

[Asher]

Chretien is going to go down in flames in favor of Paul Martin, which will help the Liberals get another majority government in 2005. I won't be nearly as upset with this as when Chretien was leader.

However, if Chretien does stay in charge, I see a huge surge in CA and NDP votes. Mostly CA.

[David James]

Originally posted by Asher
Chretien is going to go down in flames in favor of Paul Martin, which will help the Liberals get another majority government in 2005. I won't be nearly as upset with this as when Chretien was leader.

I'm not so sure he will as I'm not convinced that Liberal party members have the intestinal fortitude to challenge a sitting PM (we're not talking British Conservatives or even CAs but Canadian Liberals). Even if Chretien is deposed, he might come back to support Manley or Rock and one can imagine his supporters doing pretty much what he tells them to do. I don't really think Martin's chances are all that good when all is said and done.

However, if Chretien does stay in charge, I see a huge surge in CA and NDP votes. Mostly CA.

I definitely agree there The internal destruction of the vaunted Liberal Party is ultimately good for the country

[monolith94]

Times are good for the canadian conservative youth party alliance…

God I love that song………

[Hobbes]

Go NDP!! Go NDP!!

Love that song too....

[Asher]

Did I miss something?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Go NDP!! Go NDP!!

Didn't the NDP's escapades in BC clue you in on how clueless they are?

[Sava]

Seriously, who gives a sh!t about Canada? It's not as if that country's going to do anything productive other than being the 51st State.

[Hobbes]

Stupid leaders, but good policies. More than what could be said the jolly ol' Alliance...

[Hobbes]

Seriously, who gives a sh!t about Canada? It's not as if that country's going to do anything productive other than being the 51st State.

Keep it down. Children are ment to be seen not heard.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Hobbes
Stupid leaders, but good policies. More than what could be said the jolly ol' Alliance...

I dunno, what policies were good with the NDP that worked for you?

The Alliance's policies tend to come from what are tried and true in Alberta economically speaking. Which seems to work pretty damn well.

The NDP's economic policies are...well, they're nonexistant last time I checked.

Their answer to everything is to jack up taxes and distribute the money into substandard, but universal, government care.