Jaydee

Conservatives..the FUTURE of Alberta !

Recommended Posts

“It took Ontario decades to turn around from Harris.”

You mean to spend our way into oblivion and put the province so far into debt that citizens believe the government can pay for everything. Let alone the business climate created from Liberal taxation policies, red tape and the disastrous Green energy program. Wait until real estate/building tanks and people are faced to deal with their personal debts. Oh, and by the way, why was Mike Harris having to cut programs and spending??

Quote

One of the key policy highlights of the Chrétien governments was the elimination of the deficit and the lowering of the federal debt. Beginning in 1994, the Chrétien government undertook a broad program to reverse federal finances, which included MASSIVE SPENDING CUTS to federal programs and transfer payments to the provinces and territories (the federal government contributes billions annually to the provinces/territories in support of their social programs, such as public health care). By 1997-98, the federal government recorded its first annual surplus in 28 years,

Chretien just solved his problem by letting the province’s twist in the wind .....thanks, Jean.. He also raided the EI coffers, but nobody remembers that.

“Why is it conservative governments (Ontario, U.S.) always have cuts to education funding as one of their first items on the agenda?“

In Ontario, it’s because its the largest expenditure after healthcare and 72 cents out of every $ goes to teachers salaries ( and enrolement is dropping-Most education funding in Ontario is disbursed on the basis of student enrolment, and for many school boards enrolment has been declining in recent years. ... Between 2011 and 2016, enrolment in Ontario secondary schools declined by 63,742 students.Sep 24, 2018)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, deicer said:

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more on education and change the curriculum to your standard if you think it's faulty?

No, it would be more prudent to fix the systemic problems that make education spending unsustainable while there is still time (and a bit of money) to do so. Simply spending more won't fix what ails Ontario; there needs to be a more thoughtful and systematic approach to things like education and healthcare. This topic really needs a new thread if you want to pursue it in the detail it deserves.

By way of example though, in the decade between 2003 and 2013 (as a for instance) education spending in Ontario grew from 17 billion to 25 billion (about 50%) at the same as enrolment dropped by 5%. So, in real terms during that period, spending per student grew by about 57%. In other words, it cost more money to educate fewer students… why? It sounds like systemic obesity to me. If I suggested this as a model for airline operations you would laugh at me. And I'm not suggesting that government should operate like a business.... but it has to remain a viable entity to survive.

This trend (of more money to educate fewer students) even transcends education and invades other departments (like healthcare) too. It seems clear to me that there is more at play here than simple money problems and that continuing to throw more money at these things is simply not sustainable. In this context, the notion of “draconian cuts” to education is analogous to an obese man claiming he is being starved to death after losing two pounds.... so yes, it was a cut but it was far too little far too late and far more is required to make him healthy after too many years of excess

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deicer said:

So if I am wrong, and liberals are so wrong, please explain to me this...

Why is it conservative governments (Ontario, U.S.) always have cuts to education funding as one of their first items on the agenda?

Wouldn't it be more prudent to spend more on education and change the curriculum to your standard if you think it's faulty?

Or does that take away from the fact that private education becomes an even more appropriate spend?

It's all about controlling the message.  If you don't have a society trained in critical thinking, then the message you spin becomes more powerful.

 

Spending isn't always the right answer to fix the systemic problems within.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now that education is under the spotlight.....how many new high priced certified teaching positions were created when Wynne went ahead with full time kindergarten?? 

Quote

The Ontario Liberal government implemented full-day kindergarten despite the research that showed its detrimental affects. It is a case of politics being more important than the learning and health of children. Full-day kindergarten is costing Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars and is nothing more than very expensive babysitting. Plus the sad fact is that the program is causing many children harm. The Liberals were more interested in using children to get votes. How? By providing government babysitting services to parents. This is a clear example of a failed policy. Children will pay a high price for such a policy with their well-being.
Forcing children into structured full-day classes does more harm than good. According to a report in the The New England Journal of Medicine, a higher percentage of children who start school too early may end up being diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD. The findings show that children born in August are 30% more likely to receive an ADHD diagnosis, compared with their slightly older peers enrolled in the same grade.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, deicer said:

Full day kindergarten was implemented instead of day care.

And that's part of the problem here. While I understand and even sympathize (a bit) with the requirement for day care, I can’t help but lump it into the same pot as things like free tuition and consider it a bottomless money pit. Using the education system as a babysitting service is exactly the type of wrong headed thinking we have been talking about, unless you are willing to pay for it.

As far as I’m concerned, children aren’t pets and it’s not the job of your neighbours to pay the  bill required to entertain and feed your children 5 days a week. I would agree with the sentiment that it takes a village to raise a child, but that’s a different concept and different level/standard of care (IMO) then having the “village” babysit on a continuous basis for 6-7 hours a day. “Nice stuff” like this and free tuition are just too expensive unless you are willing to pay for it.

Nothing in my experience to date convinces me that liberal voters who want this are in anyway inclined to pay for it…. when asked, they will insist that the rich will pay for it all; and we already know who that is right? In addition, I’m of the mind that if you are smart enough to go to university then you are smart enough to figure out how to pay for it.

In short, I’m happy to support the concept but I must insist on knowing exactly how it will be funded before agreeing…. chanting things like “make the rich pay” won’t convince me anymore. I see it at virtually every turn, I will even go so far as to place a bet that sanctuary cities will soon turn on the very refugees they swore to provide sanctuary to once the new immigration policy kicks in and it's all because of the cost. It can work, and it may work well in other jurisdictions who choose to make it a priority. But it won't work here unless you are willing to pay for it. It appears to me that the voters of Ontario don't want to.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct.  Why should you pay for it.

However, when you look at the policies that have basically frozen wages, it is necessary to have both parents working.

I was raised in a house where you could survive on one salary.

Today's concentration of wealth has taken away that ability for the majority of the population.

Reinstate proper wage growth, and it may go a long way to ending the problems you describe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, deicer said:

You are correct.  Why should you pay for it.

However, when you look at the policies that have basically frozen wages, it is necessary to have both parents working.

I was raised in a house where you could survive on one salary.

Today's concentration of wealth has taken away that ability for the majority of the population.

Reinstate proper wage growth, and it may go a long way to ending the problems you describe.

 

Re surviving on one salary and no longer being able to do so. I suspect it is more about the "expected needs" / change in acceptable life styles, rather than any concentration of wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, deicer said:

With the median salary in Canada at $34,000 for a single earner, please tell me in which city and how you could have a family.

https://vanierinstitute.ca/modern-family-finances-income-canada-january-2018

 

“ Statistics Canada recently updated their report on average salaries across the country,  and it seems we’re taking home a little more than we were in 2016.

The average salary for Canadian employees has been steadily increasing since 2013. As of September 2017, the average wage for Canadian employees was $986 a week – or just over $51,000 a year. This represents a 3.1% increase over the same period last year.

https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/how-much-money-are-we-earning-the-average-canadian-wages-right-now/

**************I*I*I*I***********I*I*

Canadians Believe The Average Salary They Need For 'Comfort' Is $250,000

Canadian expectations verses reality.....I guess that “ average “ Canadian will have to raise their input level to their expectations level...oh yeah that’s right...that would encompass hard work so let’s just take it from the people who actually worked their ass off, took chances, started a company probably working 80 hours a week to be successful only to have the Lefties of the world want to take it away from them. Nice try...suggest you try a stint in Venezuela for a dose of reality to what Socialism brings.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/03/average-salary-canada-wealth_a_23579661/

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gday Jay

While you are not wrong, you stat is the 'average' wage,  not the median wage.

Median wage is more representative of what Canadian's are actually earning.

IE: if out of 10 people 9 make $1 while one makes $1000000, the average wage is $100000.

Not very representative.

 

Edited by deicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, deicer said:

Median wage is more representative of what Canadian's are actually earning.

Agreed, that's a problem that needs addressing.

I wonder though if it might be advantageous to make it more difficult for governments to run deficits. Clearly, it is a financial tool that in and of itself is not unreasonable if used judiciously.... but, Ontario is a huge non sovereign debtor and it's right at the top of that category world wide. By enforcing balanced budgets, within the bounds of reasonableness (say within a specified percentage of GDP), it would force voters to pick and choose their priorities. Those priorities could then be fully funded within the existing budget. I'm a fan of direct democracy in the form of referendums as well, again, within the bounds of reasonableness.

Everybody wants something and everybody has there own priorities, that's just life. As with life in the real world (your household for example) you and I pick and choose, we decide between what we want and what we need on a daily basis. Thats not to suggest that governments should operate like a household, but clearly there comes a point when too much is too much and debt becomes unsustainable.... I think Ontario is already there.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That circles us back to 'what is debt'?

Yes, if we don't pay, they put us in jail.

As Greece, and now the U.S. is proving, as a country or even a provincial entity, what does it matter?

Countries owe to countries, provinces owe to provinces, in the end, it means very little as they just keep printing more money to keep the wheels turning.  

You say to run a province like a household?  Never will happen, a province, or country isn't a household and never will be.

You say Ontario is critical?  Good, I await the day that they hook up the tow truck and haul it away.

In the past they put slaves in chains.  Now a days they give you a student loan, credit card and a line of credit.

The pendulum has swung too far to the right on the tax cuts and concentration of wealth.

Overall, who cares?  It's just slavery of the poor.

Edited to add...

When they start governing for the median, instead of the top, then maybe you'll see debt levels drop.

 

Edited by deicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, deicer said:

You say to run a province like a household?  Never will happen, a province, or country isn't a household and never will be.

 

No, I said "thats not to suggest that governments should operate like a household." 

I also said "but clearly, there comes a point when too much is too much and debt becomes unsustainable.

If your position is "what does it matter?" I'm afraid I can't help you and I think you will be voted down... we can negotiate after you find out that does matter though. Maybe lunch on my next IBA motorcycle sortie eh? I'll even buy. Cheers

PS in a previous post, you branded me a nemesis... when was the last time a nemesis bought you lunch?

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it was Ontario getting the shaft, now it's Alberta's turn!  But hey, you got what you voted for...

https://pressprogress.ca/jason-kenney-is-giving-corporations-a-massive-tax-giveaway-that-will-cost-albertans-3-7-billion/

 

Alberta will lose 12% of the annual revenues it depends on to pay for public services thanks to a Donald Trump-inspired corporate tax giveaway announced this week by Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

Flanked by Finance Minister Travis Toews and Lafarge Canada CEO Brad Kohl, Kenney confirmed Monday Alberta will roll back taxes on corporate profits from 12% to 10% on January 1, 2020. It will be lowered further to 8% in 2022.

A recent report commissioned by the Alberta Federation of Labour noted that Kenney’s corporate tax giveaway will remove 12% of public revenues the province currently invests in public services.

Kenney’s economic policies, including the corporate tax giveaway, are estimated to eliminate 58,000 Alberta jobs that pay living wages — that’s more jobs than were lost during the 2015 oil crash.

mackenzie-alberta-joblosses.jpg

Hugh Mackenzie (AFL)

Kenney still has not explained which services he intends to cut to meet his balanced budget targets.

Economist Hugh Mackenzie, who authored the AFL report, says public services are in for tough times.

“Think of it this way,” Mackenzie told PressProgress: If you think of eight things currently being done by the public sector, when this is done it will be seven.” 

Mackenzie noted that even with a spending freeze, public education, postsecondary and health care services would deteriorate as they are all facing increasing needs due to Alberta’s growing population and shifting demographics.

During the announcement, Kenney falsely asserted that the corporate tax giveaway would create jobs despite decades of research that shows corporate tax cuts are a terrible job creation tool that only lead to corporate cash hoarding.

Instead of creating jobs, Mackenzie says the money is more likely to be returned to shareholders.

“What we know is that what happens to that additional cash is highly debatable,” Mackenzeie said.

“For example in the US there’s evidence that the substantial portion of Trump’s cuts just became increased cash for corporations to deploy in other ways.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.