Jaydee

Conservatives..the FUTURE of Alberta !

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Busting the myth of Ontario's 'massive education cuts'

This month, after the Ford movement released its first budget, reactions from Ontario teacher unions and school board administrators was swift. Some claim the budget calls for “massive education cuts” and that schools will be starved for resources. But a closer look shows that K-12 education spending will simply return to 2016/17 levels.

First, a bit of background. Education spending in Ontario has increased significantly in recent years. A recent study found that during the 10-year period between 2006/07 and 2015/16, per-student inflation-adjusted spending on public schools in Ontario rose from $11,238 to $13,321—an increase of 18.5 per cent.

Over the same period, public school enrolment dropped from just over 2.1 million students in 2006/07 to slightly less than 2.0 million students in 2015/16—a decrease of 5.2 per cent. Ontario has been spending more and more on fewer and fewer students.

After years of declining enrolment in public schools, the last couple of years have seen small increases, with average daily pupil enrolment projected to be 2,012,000 by the 2019/20 school year. On average, over the last four years, Ontario’s enrolment has grown by about 0.06 per cent per year.

The new budget essentially calls for spending on K-12 education to be held constant in nominal terms over the next five years, increasing from $29.8 billion in 2019/20 to $30.2 billion in 2023/24. However, to get a true understanding of education spending, both changes in enrolment and price levels (inflation) must be taken into account. If the slow rate of average growth in enrolment over the last four years and current inflation remain relatively constant, real (inflation-adjusted) per-student spending will decline from a high $15,597 in 2019/20 to $14,600 in 2023/24—a difference of $997 or 6.4 per cent.

At first glance, this appears to be a significant cut in spending, but it’s important to look at this level of spending in context.

In 2016/17 Ontario spent $14,574 per-student in current 2019 dollars. This budget projects spending will reach $15,597 per student (inflation-adjusted) in 2019/20. Holding K-12 public education spending basically at current levels, coupled with modest increases in student enrolment and inflation, means that by 2023-24 per-student inflation-adjusted spending will fall back to $14,600.

Rather than a drastic cut to education spending, this is simply a return to what was spent only two years ago in 2016/17. What’s more, the government is taking four years to implement these reductions. If Ontario public schools weren’t “starved” for resources in 2016/17, they won’t be starved for resources in 2023/24.

It’s not surprising that any reduction in education spending—or even merely holding nominal spending steady—spurs swift and passionate criticism. However, when considered in a larger historical context, education spending in Ontario is simply returning to per-student inflation-adjusted spending.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/busting-the-myth-of-ontarios-massive-education-cuts

And before you dismiss this as garbage...

” Fraser Institute ranked top think-tank in Canada; 18th most influential think-tank in the world “

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/fraser-institute-ranked-top-think-tank-in-canada-18th-most-influential-think-tank-in-the-world

 

and you believe this????? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, boestar said:

and you believe this????? 

And the fact you don’t is even more worrisome. The Frazier Institute is recognized around the world for its exceptional research...everywhere that is except among Liberals in Canada. And yes, I will take their finding over the Leftist bought media any day of the week.

Have you ever watched “The Great Hack”. Yes, it’s about the American 2016 election and Russians, but let’s not forget the use of Cambridge Analytical started with Obama.

Amazing what $$$$$$ will do to influence a countries democracy. Ever heard of the Tides Foundations influence on the Canadian election in 2014?

Look who’s being “schooled” here.

 

 

 

EA02D40F-D986-4088-8DB0-53BE8DE16CAC.png

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fraser Institute is a far right think tank that also advocates for private education for the rich. 

Testing results show that the education system in Ontario needs fixing, not cutting.  Students aren't as they were 50 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jaydee said:

And the fact you don’t is even more worrisome. The Frazier Institute is recognized around the world for its exceptional research...everywhere that is except among Liberals in Canada. And yes, I will take their finding over the Leftist bought media any day of the week.

Have you ever watched “The Great Hack”. Yes, it’s about the American 2016 election and Russians, but let’s not forget the use of Cambridge Analytical started with Obama.

Amazing what $$$$$$ will do to influence a countries democracy. Ever heard of the Tides Foundations influence on the Canadian election in 2014?

Look who’s being “schooled” here.

 

 

 

EA02D40F-D986-4088-8DB0-53BE8DE16CAC.png

Just to correct the assumption, CA was started by Steve Bannon(yes him) and Robert Mercer.

Both far right types.

It's first major job was the Trump campaign, and was also involved in Brexit. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Analytica

Cambridge Analytica Ltd (CA) was a British political consulting firm which combined data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication during the electoral processes.[5][6] It was started in 2013 as an offshoot of the SCL Group.[7] The company closed operations in 2018 in the course of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, although related firms still exist.[8]

The company was partly owned by the family of Robert Mercer, an American hedge-fund manager who supports many politically conservative causes.[7][9] The firm maintained offices in London, New York City, and Washington, DC.[10] CEO Alexander Nix has said CA was involved in 44 US political races in 2014.[11] In 2015, CA performed data analysis services for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign.[9] In 2016, CA worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign[12] as well as for Leave.EU (one of the organisations campaigning in the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership). CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations in both countries

History

Cambridge Analytica (SCL USA) was incorporated in January 2015 with its registered office in Westferry Circus, London and just one staff member, its director and CEO Alexander James Ashburner Nix (also appointed in January 2015).[32] Nix is also the director of nine similar companies sharing the same registered offices in London, including Firecrest technologies, Emerdata and six SCL Group companies including "SCL elections limited".[33]Nigel Oakes founded SCL Group, which is the parent company of Cambridge Analytica.[34]

Publicly, SCL Group called itself a "global election management agency",[35]Politico reported it was known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting".[9] SCL's involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup.[9]

Cambridge Analytica was founded by conservative businessmen Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer. A minimum of 15 million dollars has been invested into the company by Mercer, according to The New York Times.[36] Bannon's stake in the company was estimated at 1 to 5 million dollars, but he divested his holdings in April 2017 as required by his role as White House Chief Strategist.[37] In March 2018, Jennifer Mercer and Rebekah Mercer became directors of Emerdata limited.[38] In March 2018 it became public by Whistleblower Christopher Wylie, that Cambridge Analytica's first activities were founded on a data set, which its parent company SCL bought 2014 from a company named Global Science Research founded by Aleksandr Kogan[39] who worked as a psychologist at Cambridge.

Per the Associated Press, Data Propria, a data analysis firm launched May 2018, is run by former officials at Cambridge Analytica.[40][41][42]

In July 2018, several former Cambridge Analytica staff launched Auspex International, a company intended to influence politics and society in Africa and the Middle East

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the documentary which I just watched last week, I would swear I heard it was used by the Obama campaign. Guess I will have to watch it a second time to confirm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story is that the young lady, Brittany Kaiser, started her political career with Obama, but then went to CA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Kaiser

Career

While she was studying in Scotland, Kaiser took time off to work on Barack Obama's media team during his presidential campaign in 2007. She also worked for Amnesty International as a lobbyist appealing for an end to crimes against humanity.[7][8]

Between February 2015 and January 2018, Kaiser worked full time for the SCL Group, the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, as director of business development. During her time at Cambridge Analytica, Kaiser worked under senior management, including CEO Alexander Nix.[5]

In April 2018, Kaiser started a Facebook campaign appealing for transparency, called #OwnYourData.[8]

Following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Kaiser fled to Thailand. She later testified before the British Parliament about Cambridge Analytica and privacy threats posed by Facebook.[3]

Kaiser is the subject of a Netflix documentary titled The Great Hack, which is about her work with Cambridge Analytica.[9][6]

Kaiser's memoir, Targeted: The Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower's Inside Story of How Big Data, Trump, and Facebook Broke Democracy and How It Can Happen Again, will be published by Harper in October 2019.[10]

See also

Edited by deicer

Share this post


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

According to the documentary which I just watched last week, I would swear I heard it was used by the Obama campaign. Guess I will have to watch it a second time to confirm

Hello, my name is Alexander Nix.
I'm CEO of Cambridge Analytica,
the world's leading
data-driven communications company.
From Mad Men of old to Math Men of today,
expert data scientists whose insight
can tell you far more about audiences
that you want to reach
and how to reach them.
Alexander Nix was very focused
on building a strong elections business.
And then the Obama campaign
very successfully used data
and digital communications,
which created a market opportunity
to provide a service
to Republican politics in the US.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=the-great-hack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are correct in that, I apologise.

However, how the data was collected and used by the two campaigns was completely different. CA didn't tell people the information they were asking for would be used for a political campaign, Obama's survey did.  CA used targeted ads and messages whereas Obama didn't.

This explains the difference, highlights my emphasis.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/22/meghan-mccain/comparing-facebook-data-use-obama-cambridge-analyt/

Comparing Facebook data use by Obama, Cambridge Analytica

 

As news reports surfaced of Cambridge Analytica and the Donald Trump campaign, conservatives pointed to what seemed a double-standard.

On ABC’s The View, co-host Meghan McCain said former President Barack Obama was met with praise when he used similar Facebook data for his campaign, whereas Trump was met with outrage.

"It happened under Obama and it was lauded by the media as being genius," McCain said. "And now under the Trump campaign — it’s the Cambridge Analytica scandal."

"Was it the same thing?" co-host Joy Behar asked.

"Yeah," McCain said. "It was micro-targeting and data mining."

"I think it’s different, though," said co-host Sunny Hostin.

"It’s not different, though!" McCain exclaimed.

So, was it the same thing?

While the data the two campaigns had access to was largely the same, the way they accessed it, and for what purpose, was very different.

"She was making the point that the Obama re-election campaign used a similar tactic through Facebook to gain access to the personal information of millions of voters," ABC spokeswoman Lauri Hogan clarified.

The data

Under the way Facebook allowed its apps to operate between 2010 and 2015, Obama’s 2012 re-election app and the survey app used by Cambridge Analytica had access not only to their users’ profiles but their friends’ list and their biographical information.

When the user approved it, these apps could access details such as users’ and their friends’ tags, likes and demographics.

Over a million people downloaded the Obama for America app. Around 300,000 people downloaded the personality survey app that ended up sending their data to Cambridge Analytica. The number of users’ data the firm reportedly gained access to (50 million) is much higher because it includes the users’ friends. The number of user data, it follows, was much higher for the Obama campaign, too.

How it was accessed

The real divergence is in the way each campaign accessed the data.

The Obama campaign created a Facebook app for supporters to donate, learn of voting requirements, and find nearby houses to canvass. The app asked users’ permission to scan their photos, friends lists, and news feeds. Most users complied.

The people signing up knew the data they were handing over would be used to support a political campaign. Their friends, however, did not.

The people who downloaded the app used by Cambridge Analytica did not know their data would be used to aid any political campaigns. The app was billed as a personality quiz that would be used by Cambridge University researchers.

Aleksandr Kogan, one of the Cambridge researchers involved in the project, sold the data to the upstart political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The company then sold its services not only to the Trump campaign, but to the presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz and the senatorial campaign of Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., among others.

When Facebook discovered a developer had shared users’ data without their consent in 2015, it asked both the original app and the consultancy to delete the data. That didn’t happen.

"The thing that is true is that every Facebook app you downloaded back then was getting access to your entire friends list," said David Karpf, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University. "When tech people were trying to raise outrage about it they were being ignored. Now, everyone is outraged. But what (McCain) is wrong about this is that Kogan then sold it, and for a much creepier purpose."

How it was used

Obama operatives used Facebook data to get users to send their messaging for them, according to Eitan Hersh, a Tufts professor who wrote Hacking the Electorate, a book on Obama’s microtargeting strategies.

Facebook friends lists, tags and photos allowed Obama operatives to identify a person’s close friends, which they then matched with offline public records. (Was this person likely to vote for Obama, but unlikely to get out to vote?) They then told the app users which of their friends they should send campaign messages to.

Cambridge Analytica dialed up what Karpf called the creepiness factor. They combined the survey results with the Facebook data to create psychological profiles they then sold to campaigns. The idea was, if the firm could discover how these people thought, they could target ads toward them.

Cambridge Analytica then sent targeted ads to the users on their database as well as users with similar profiles, identified by Facebook’s Lookalike tool. The friends of the app users weren’t being targeted by their friends, but by the campaign itself. In other words, the consenting middle man was gone.

In his research, Hersh found that neither tactic was greatly effective at persuading people to vote.

Our ruling

McCain said that there was a strong equivalence between how the Obama and Trump campaigns accessed user data on Facebook. 

The Obama campaign and Cambridge Analytica both gained access to huge amounts of information about Facebook users and their friends, and in neither case did the friends of app users consent.

But in Obama’s case, direct users knew they were handing over their data to a political campaign. In the Cambridge Analytica case, users only knew were taking a personality quiz for academic purposes.

The Obama campaign used the data to have their supporters contact their most persuadable friends. Cambridge Analytica targeted users, friends and lookalikes directly with digital ads.

Whereas the data gathering and the uses were very different, the data each campaign gained access to was similar. We rate this statement Half True.

Edited by deicer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CA is also the driving force in getting Brexit passed the UK population.

There is a great movie about it.

CA and the like control the population and Memes are one of the main delivery methods.  I think you are a courier for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like we saw in Ontario, reward your masters and make the people pay....

https://globalnews.ca/news/5327743/alberta-corporate-income-taxes-kenney/

Alberta introduces bill to slash corporate income taxes by a third to 8%

 

Alberta has put the legal wheels in motion to cut corporate income taxes by one third.

The changes are part of a bill introduced in the legislature by Finance Minister Travis Toews.

Bill 3, if passed, will see Alberta’s 12 per cent corporate rate cut by one percentage point on July 1, making it the lowest in Canada.

The rate would be reduced by the same amount on the first day of the following three years, leaving it at eight per cent on Jan. 1, 2020.

 

“Real live examples in other jurisdictions did not result in the kind of return on investment that he (Toews) is talking about.”

Alberta’s largest union issued a statement on Bill 3, saying it threatens public services and doesn’t guarantee more jobs for Albertans.

“This bill is a free ticket-to-ride that lets profitable corporations contribute less to the province that has enabled them to make enormous profits,” said Guy Smith, president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE).

“In the first year alone, the province will be out $348-million in revenue,” Smith added. “Additionally, there is nothing that forces corporations to hire more people after being rewarded with a tax break.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

Just like we saw in Ontario, reward your masters and make the people pay....

https://globalnews.ca/news/5327743/alberta-corporate-income-taxes-kenney/

Alberta introduces bill to slash corporate income taxes by a third to 8%

 

Alberta has put the legal wheels in motion to cut corporate income taxes by one third.

The changes are part of a bill introduced in the legislature by Finance Minister Travis Toews.

Bill 3, if passed, will see Alberta’s 12 per cent corporate rate cut by one percentage point on July 1, making it the lowest in Canada.

The rate would be reduced by the same amount on the first day of the following three years, leaving it at eight per cent on Jan. 1, 2020.

 

“Real live examples in other jurisdictions did not result in the kind of return on investment that he (Toews) is talking about.”

Alberta’s largest union issued a statement on Bill 3, saying it threatens public services and doesn’t guarantee more jobs for Albertans.

“This bill is a free ticket-to-ride that lets profitable corporations contribute less to the province that has enabled them to make enormous profits,” said Guy Smith, president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE).

“In the first year alone, the province will be out $348-million in revenue,” Smith added. “Additionally, there is nothing that forces corporations to hire more people after being rewarded with a tax break.”

Give me a fff... ng break, that was announced back in May.  Come on, you must have more current stuff or are you only playing close attention to Ontario?  How about this"https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/budget-2019-albertans-to-pay-more-as-united-conservative-government-reins-in-spending-1.5332779

And unlike those who voted for the NDP in the Alberta election and their placing a long term mortgage on our children's future, we voted for this:

https://globalnews.ca/video/6079580/alberta-budget-breakdown-in-less-than-1-minute/

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it’s difficult, we all fall into the trap every now and then but try not to let the troll get to you. It just makes his day Just let him live in his fairy tale la-la-land where he seems happy.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reference my post in the 'Marching On' thread and you will see that this is just a continuation of the damaging conservative policies that have put Alberta in the position it is in, and it will continue to enrich the friends of Kenney and Scheer at the expense of the general population.

Just like Ford's doing to Ontario, as Harris did before him.

History repeats itself.....

Share this post


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

Reference my post in the 'Marching On' thread and you will see that this is just a continuation of the damaging conservative policies that have put Alberta in the position it is in, and it will continue to enrich the friends of Kenney and Scheer at the expense of the general population.

Just like Ford's doing to Ontario, as Harris did before him.

History repeats itself.....

 

5C6055F7-75A0-4910-942A-15D6E2D31BEB.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Reference my post in the 'Marching On' thread and you will see that this is just a continuation of the damaging conservative policies that have put Alberta in the position it is in, and it will continue to enrich the friends of Kenney and Scheer at the expense of the general population.

Just like Ford's doing to Ontario, as Harris did before him.

History repeats itself.....

Alberta’s budget at a glance

Today’s Alberta budget represents a marked departure from recent fiscal policy in the province. Alberta governments of various stripes have run nearly uninterrupted deficits since 2008/09, and the province has gone from having $35 billion in net financial assets to over $37 billion in net debt—a roughly $70 billion deterioration in the province’s financial assets over the course of a decade.

After years of complacency, however, Thursday’s budget finally produced a serious plan to begin addressing Alberta’s fiscal challenges by actually reducing provincial government spending instead of simply hoping for oil revenues to bounce back and save the day.

The plan is not as ambitious as it could be. A faster path to deficit elimination (two to three years instead of four) would have reflected a recognition of Canadian history that faster plans have a much better track record of success. It also would have meant less new debt. What’s more, additional spending reductions would have created additional fiscal room for additional pro-growth tax reform beyond the steps that have already been made with respect to Corporate Income Taxes.

Nonetheless, if it’s fully implemented, the budget will have marked a major shift in Alberta provincial fiscal policy. Below are a few key takeaways from the budget, with a particular focus on comparing the new budget to the fiscal policy approach that has prevailed in recent years.

  • Deficit reduction: the budget plan would eliminate the deficit over a four-year period. This is significant change from the recent past, during which there has been little consistent progress on the deficit, which has ranged from $6.4 billion to $10.8 billion.
  • Spending: This is likely the most important change in approach. The last government increased annual program spending at an average annual rate of 3.4 per cent between 2015/16 and 2018/19. By contrast, program spending will now start moving in the opposite direction, declining by 1.6 per cent over four years. This spending reduction is at the core of the new government’s deficit-elimination plan, which stands in contrast to previous governments who continued to increase nominal spending and tied their deficit-elimination hopes almost entirely to improvements in natural resource revenue.
  • Debt: One of the most important dimensions of this year’s budget is that, if implemented, it would make provincial finances much more sustainable than they were before—which is to say it would substantially slow the pace of growth in the province’s debt-to-GDP ratio. The new fiscal plan calls for net debt-to-GDP to increase by one percentage point (from 10.2 to 11.2) between 2019/20 and 2022/23. By contrast, this ratio increased by 12 percentage points over the preceding four years. Again, if forecasts in the budget come to pass, the rapid run up in provincial debt relative to GDP will have ended.

Finally, it should be noted that the plan laid out in today’s budget is modest compared to previous Canadian fiscal consolidations. While nominal spending reductions are a marked departure from recent Alberta history, these reductions pale in comparison to the approximately 20 per cent spending cut by the Klein government, and cuts by the Saskatchewan NDP and Chretien Liberals in the 1990s, which make Premier Kenney’s reductions look small.

Nevertheless, nominal spending will start going down instead of up, the plan for deficit reduction is no longer entirely dependent on oil revenue recovery, and the process of rapidly growing debt-to-GDP ratio is forecasted to end. Alberta’s 2019 budget is therefore a highly consequential one, and represents a major shift in provincial fiscal policy compared to the very recent past.

 

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/albertas-budget-at-a-glance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fraser Institute only pushes for business friendly policies.

That runs contrary to what is actually good for the working man.

Calling everything that benefits the public 'socialism' also doesn't take into account the billions that get siphoned off by corrupt politicians and leaders.  That is the true reason why countries like Venezuela are in such trouble.  

This Alberta budget will only exacerbate the problems in the province when jobs are lost and tax revenue drops.  It's PIO.

Just look at Ontario as an example under Harris.  That's where they are going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure you have your sources for your enlightening diatribes, but thank God for all the sane people in the world that put value in reality verses the “World according to Garp” .
 

IMO your POV and research pales in comparison with the Fraser institute, rated #1 Think tank in Canada and #16 in the world. But then again, their research is probably dictated  by the Russians, so wtf do they know. Rock On  :icon_super:
 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no flaws in their research, but like all sponsored research, they search only for the results that verify their point of view.

How many times have other institutes been accused of that?  The brush tars all.

And if you want a direct comparison, the U.S. is closer to being Venezuela than Canada.  Canadian debt levels are being managed in a more organised fashion.

Trump is the dictator that is doing the most he can to enrich the 1% and the undeniable proof of that is the record deficit and debt that he has created.  How did he do it?  Tax cuts for the rich and corporations and service cuts for the population.

Sound familiar?

Share this post


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

Trump is the dictator that is doing the most he can to enrich the 1%

The elusive 1% always seems to come up. I would submit that in virtually any closed group, there will always be a 1%. It’s an offshoot of Price’s law and a game of Monopoly will prove my point. By the end of the game, one person will own pretty much everything and everyone else will be reduced accordingly.

Since this is an aviation forum, I will further submit that the 1% is alive and well there too and you are likely (or possibly) a beneficiary of it….  so lets put it to the test and see if you agree:

Pilots, FA’s, AME’s and CSA’s receive pay and schedules based on earned (thats EARNED) seniority. When you compare the top 40 pilots at AC with new hires (pre-formula pay) it becomes pretty obvious who is making the big dollars and who the 1% is (in that closed group). How about averaging the entire pilot (FA, AME,CSA) salary and paying all members of the bargaining group the same amount. Those at the top would get much less and those at the bottom would benefit tremendously. I wonder if you could sell that to the people who would otherwise have agreed with your premise. I doubt they see themselves as the 1%, but within the confines of the bargaining group, they most certainly are. You will likely point out that “it’s not the same” but it’s pretty close, at least for discussion purposes. Reducing the wealth of the senior pilots to subsidize the junior ones would have some predictable effects. The 1% would flee the company taking their experience with them and go somewhere else and training costs/pilot attrition would go through the roof. It would eventually trickle down to the top 60% and you would find yourself operating a training facility for other operators. Every pilot would leave as soon as the the salary they could command elsewhere exceeded the reduced salary they were getting as a result of the change. While the circumstances are always different, the results become predictable. The RCAF is in a terrible fix right now and the circumstances are (somewhat) analogous in their predictability.

In any case, tax the 1% as you see fit, but please don’t start a new social program and promise to fund it that way until you have actually taxed them and fully funded the program as a result of that tax…. I’ve been hearing about it for a long time and it still hasn’t happened. Capital is fleeing New York and California as I type and it will catch up with them, some might say it already has.... pretty predictable IMO. The current pilot shortage is a direct result of high entry costs and low starting pay.The MBA crew got it wrong and, IMO, conducted business as if they were progressive democrats until it blew up in their faces.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have twisted it once again to something that isn't even related.

What this situation is the highlighting of conservative practice of giving the 1% tax advantages while not affording it to the rest of the population, thereby causing them to have to pay more for services due to the lack of funding created by the tax cut for the 1%.

So while you may not have increased taxes, you have increased the overall cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deicer said:

What this situation is the highlighting of conservative practice of giving the 1% tax advantages while not affording it to the rest of the population

Just change the word tax to salary and the word conservative to union...... presto, you have an exact quote from new hire pilots.

What this situation is the highlighting of union practice of giving the 1% salary advantages while not affording it to the rest of the population.

Lest you think it's different, consider the B scale in place at some airlines, how that came about and who voted to accept it. 

I'll go out on a limb here and say the top 1% of wage earners at AC would be opposed to my progressive model. As is the case in every closed system, and AC is no different, there is always a 1% and punishing them can come at a high cost. California will be a place to watch over the next few years. It recently made my motorcycle no go list.... they had to work for that.

Regardless though, my point remains.... the law of unintended consequence will apply to pilot mobility (ie attrition) in that capital (in the form of experienced pilots) will flee. I suppose there is a balance here somewhere, but since I don't trust the government to fill potholes, I doubt they will find it. 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will always be a 1% regardless of how draconian Socialists policies affect people. At least Deicer will always have someone to blame.

 

Socialism is shared misery, Capitalism is shared opportunity. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What readers think of Alberta’s deep budget cuts

“ Finally some common sense “

 

'Alberta is doing everything it can to not turn into an Ontario. It takes discipline”

“ Wow, a Canadian politician who actually tries to balance the budget as promised. “
 

“ That’s what leadership looks like “

“ Very refreshing and kudos to Alberta for having the fortitude to do this. They managed the finances irresponsibly during the boom times, and the whole mess wasn’t helped by the last few years of NDP rule. “

 

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-finally-some-common-sense-what-readers-think-of-albertas-deep/

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jaydee said:


What readers think of Alberta’s deep budget cuts

“ Finally some common sense “

 

'Alberta is doing everything it can to not turn into an Ontario. It takes discipline”

“ Wow, a Canadian politician who actually tries to balance the budget as promised. “
 

“ That’s what leadership looks like “

“ Very refreshing and kudos to Alberta for having the fortitude to do this. They managed the finances irresponsibly during the boom times, and the whole mess wasn’t helped by the last few years of NDP rule. “

 

 

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-finally-some-common-sense-what-readers-think-of-albertas-deep/

Of course Deicer will view it as Conservatism run amuck...   

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.