Why the hate for harper?

[Argus]

Well, I'm glad you feel pain for them. I on the other hand have no sympathy for a place with nearly twice the money of all the non oil producing states. I'm going to say something that should already be evidently clear. If policies had really be constructed by the federal government that were negative for Alberta, then Alberta wouldn't be the wealthiest province in Canada today.

That is not exactly a difficult feat to manage. I mean, it's not like they have a hard time competing with the Atlantic provinces, or with an Ontario McGuinty is running into the ground, or with Quebec which has always felt it better to let Anglos work for them.

Also, the idea that Quebec has contributed nothing to Canada when in fact without Quebec Canada would never have existed in its current form is laughable. You're letting your anger, hatred, and bigotry get the best of you again.

And your ignorance and laughable naivete is clear behind your words - again. Do please tell me what Quebec has contributed to Canada during your brief life span. Quebec has been a leech sucking funds out of the rest of Canada for the last forty years and giving nothing back but a sulky, whiny hostility. You call that bigotry only because you don't understand what judgment is. Because you're not old enough to have any.

[Smallc]

That is not exactly a difficult feat to manage. I mean, it's not like they have a hard time competing with the Atlantic provinces, or with an Ontario McGuinty is running into the ground, or with Quebec which has always felt it better to let Anglos work for them.

Ontario under McGuinty has actually grown faster than Alberta (until 2006 when the US started to slow down). Oil is the defining difference between making $40 - 45K per capita (Manitoba, BC, Ontario) and $60 - 80K per person (Alberta, N+L, and Saskatchewan).

And your ignorance and laughable naivete is clear behind your words - again. Do please tell me what Quebec has contributed to Canada during your brief life span. Quebec has been a leech sucking funds out of the rest of Canada for the last forty years and giving nothing back but a sulky, whiny hostility. You call that bigotry only because you don't understand what judgment is. Because you're not old enough to have any.

Ah yes, the you're too young to understand why I'm old and bitter argument...gotcha. Quebec contributes a great deal to Canada culturally, and the fact that it has the second largest GDP of any of the provinces doesn't hurt either. You hate them (and everyone else who isn't white and or doesn't speak english (or has an accent). You've made that abundantly clear to everyone on this board. I don't care to know what you think about people who aren't like you.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Argus]

Ontario under McGuinty has actually grown faster than Alberta (until 2006 when the US started to slow down).

What you mean is Alberta's GDP slowed because of all the money the feds took out and because of the reduction in the world price of oil.

Ah yes, the you're too young to understand why I'm old and bitter argument...gotcha. Quebec contributes a great deal to Canada culturally, and the fact that it has the second largest GDP of any of the provinces doesn't hurt either.

Really? What does Quebec contribute culturally? I'm desperately interested. Please enlighten me. As for the size of it's GDP. Who the hell cares about that? You might as well say they're large geographically for all that matters. The fact is they're a net drain on the financial resources of the rest of the country and have been for many decades - with no sign of that ever changing.

You hate them (and everyone else who isn't white and or doesn't speak english (or has an accent). You've made that abundantly clear to everyone on this board. I don't care to know what you think about people who aren't like you.

Dear little SmallC. You misunderstand me. I don't mock you because you're young. Kimmy is young. The difference is, Kimmy is also smart, and Kimmy almost always knows what she's talking about. You, on the other hand, are an infantile and ignorant little twit.

[Smallc]

What you mean is Alberta's GDP slowed because of all the money the feds took out and because of the reduction in the world price of oil.

No, Ontario was growing very quickly, in the range of 4% a year. Alberta really picked up around the mid 2000s to outpace them. There is a direct correlation between the price of oil and the growth in Alberta's economy.

Really? What does Quebec contribute culturally? I'm desperately interested. Please enlighten me. As for the size of it's GDP. Who the hell cares about that? You might as well say they're large geographically for all that matters. The fact is they're a net drain on the financial resources of the rest of the country and have been for many decades - with no sign of that ever changing.

If I have to explain these things to you (about culture), it isn't worth it. Quebec's $300B GDP isn't a drain on resources, it's a contributor. Yes, Quebec's government is a drain, but that's a completely different matter.

Dear little SmallC. You misunderstand me. I don't mock you because you're young. Kimmy is young. The difference is, Kimmy is also smart, and Kimmy almost always knows what she's talking about. You, on the other hand, are an infantile and ignorant little twit.

Nice insults Argus. Very wise of you. You agree with Kimmy. You don't agree with me. That doesn't make me wrong. I nearly always provide evidence to back up what I say. I can't say the same thing for you.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

If I have to explain these things to you (about culture), it isn't worth it. Quebec's $300B GDP isn't a drain on resources, it's a contributor. Yes, Quebec's government is a drain, but that's a completely different matter.

And yet its debt to GDP ratio is worse then that of Greeces, and its you and I making up for Quebec's shortfall.

[Argus]

No, Ontario was growing very quickly, in the range of 4% a year. Alberta really picked up around the mid 2000s to outpace them. There is a direct correlation between the price of oil and the growth in Alberta's economy.

Yeah, no kidding. Now examine how government deficit spending can increase GDP. And you want to give them credit for that?

If I have to explain these things to you (about culture), it isn't worth it.

In other words, you were talking out of your ass because you couldn't think of anything, and now you're trying to evade the question.

Quebec's $300B GDP isn't a drain on resources, it's a contributor.

Oh, in what way does it contribute? In what way does Quebec's GDP help ME, as opposed to the way its leeching ways steal money out of my pocket?

Nice insults Argus.

I wasn't insulting you. I was defining you.

Very wise of you. You agree with Kimmy. You don't agree with me. That doesn't make me wrong.

No doubt Oleg could say the same. No doubt he has.

I nearly always provide evidence to back up what I say.

Not actually true.

[Smallc]

And yet its debt to GDP ratio is worse then that of Greeces, and its you and I making up for Quebec's shortfall.

Actually no, that isn't true.

Ontario’s ratio of net debt to GDP is forecast at 34.1% this year, compared with 47.6% for Quebec and 39.3% in Nova Scotia, according to RBC data.

http://www.torontosun.com/money/2010/05/28/14176781.html

Net debt to GDP, a very important measure, still doesn't look bad at all.

[Smallc]

Yeah, no kidding. Now examine how government deficit spending can increase GDP. And you want to give them credit for that?

Government spending is not enough to account for a 4% increase in a $600B economy.

In other words, you were talking out of your ass because you couldn't think of anything, and now you're trying to evade the question.

No, I'm not. Quebec contributes a great deal in terms of culture. That you can't see it is your problem.

Oh, in what way does it contribute? In what way does Quebec's GDP help ME, as opposed to the way its leeching ways steal money out of my pocket?

I don't know if you realize this, but the people of Quebec pay taxes too. That helps you. Also, I don't know if you realize, but having an economy that's $300B larger than it would otherwise be greatly increases Canada's influence.

I wasn't insulting you. I was defining you.

With your usual happiness and charm.

No doubt Oleg could say the same. No doubt he has.

Again, .

Not actually true.

Quite true in fact.

[Alta4ever]

Actually no, that isn't true.

http://www.torontosun.com/money/2010/05/28/14176781.html

Net debt to GDP, a very important measure, still doesn't look bad at all.

Net debt try measuring it against total debt its closer to 94% OF gdp

[Smallc]

Net debt try measuring it against total debt its closer to 94% OF gdp

That may very well be, but in comparison to the other provinces, it's net debt isn't yet very bad. That said, Quebec does have to get its finances under control and keep them there. Still, that doesn't mean Quebec as a whole is the drain on the nation, but rather just its government.

BTW, 94% is not higher than the debt of Greece, it's nearly as high as that amount. Japan somehow manages to carry far more debt.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

That may very well be, but in comparison to the other provinces, it's net debt isn't yet very bad. That said, Quebec does have to get its finances under control and keep them there. Still, that doesn't mean Quebec as a whole is the drain on the nation, but rather just its government.

BTW, 94% is not higher than the debt of Greece, it's nearly as high as that amount. Japan somehow manages to carry far more debt.

not bad its debt is nearly as much as its economic output. Greece is a 115% of GDP not much difference.

[Smallc]

not bad its debt is nearly as much as its economic output. Greece is a 115% of GDP not much difference.

21% is a big difference. Quebec among other places needs to get things under control. They were getting there before the recession. In Quebec's defence, one of the things that makes their debt look bad is the fact that they own Hydro Quebec, and so the government debt looks far higher than it is.

[Alta4ever]

21% is a big difference. Quebec among other places needs to get things under control. They were getting there before the recession. In Quebec's defence, one of the things that makes their debt look bad is the fact that they own Hydro Quebec, and so the government debt looks far higher than it is.

Its not a big a difference considering the 100% is where it is bad, quebec is at 94% only 6% off that mark. Quit making excuses.

[Smallc]

Its not a big a difference considering the 100% is where it is bad, quebec is at 94% only 6% off that mark. Quit making excuses.

Hydro Quebec is a valid excuse though. In Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro has raised Manitoba's government debt every year while the government hasn't run a deficit. Quebec is in a similar situation with Hydro Quebec, except that Hydro Quebec's debt is much larger. They are after all the largest power utility in the Americas.

As I've already said though, Quebec needs to return to surplus within a few years. I'm not making excuses either. There is a big difference between 94% and 115%.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

Hydro Quebec is a valid excuse though. In Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro has raised Manitoba's government debt every year while the government hasn't run a deficit. Quebec is in a similar situation with Hydro Quebec, except that Hydro Quebec's debt is much larger. They are after all the largest power utility in the Americas.

As I've already said though, Quebec needs to return to surplus within a few years. I'm not making excuses either. There is a big difference between 94% and 115%.

Right return to surplus, pfft this quebec we are talking about

[Smallc]

Right return to surplus, pfft this quebec we are talking about

Quebec was running a surplus before the recession. It was actually a rather large surplus.

[Alta4ever]

Quebec was running a surplus before the recession. It was actually a rather large surplus.

No they weren't they require the entrenched equalization program to make ends meet. As in have not province status.

Edited May 30, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Smallc]

No they weren't they require the entrenched equalization program to make ends meet. As in have not province status.

And with that, they were running a surplus. It isn't as if they can refuse equalization payments.

[Alta4ever]

And with that, they were running a surplus. It isn't as if they can refuse equalization payments.

Yes they could, they could even stop demanding more more, what is they want now 20 billion?

[Shady]

Hydro Quebec is a valid excuse though. In Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro has raised Manitoba's government debt every year

Perhaps this is another example of an activity government shouldn't be doing.

And with that, they were running a surplus. It isn't as if they can refuse equalization payments.

Then that's not really running a surplus. That's like GM claiming to have made a huge profit, but counting the government bailout as part of the so-called huge profit. It's destructive behavior and destructive accounting for long-term prosperity.

[Smallc]

Then that's not really running a surplus.

Ummmm, yes it is. If you have lower expenses than revenue, you have a surplus. It doesn't matter where that revenue comes from. You don't like equalization. That doesn't mean it isn't used as part of GAAP when determining fiscal position. The program is constitutionally mandated, and so it isn't going anywhere.

[Alta4ever]

Ummmm, yes it is. If you have lower expenses than revenue, you have a surplus. It doesn't matter where that revenue comes from. You don't like equalization. That doesn't mean it isn't used as part of GAAP when determining fiscal position. The program is constitutionally mandated, and so it isn't going anywhere.

It does matter where the revenue comes from, because someone has to pay for it and if you leach them into the situation then what?

As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "

[Smallc]

It does matter where the revenue comes from, because someone has to pay for it and if you leach them into the situation then what?

It's not relevant when you're determining then end fiscal position.

As Churchill said "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. "

And if that quote applied here, you'd be on to something.

[Alta4ever]

It's not relevant when you're determining then end fiscal position.

And if that quote applied here, you'd be on to something.

Yes it does. The fact of the matter is they cannot claim surplus as they cannot fund themselves on their own efforts they require a hand out.

[Argus]

Government spending is not enough to account for a 4% increase in a $600B economy.

Yeah it is. But I didn't say it accounted for the entire thing, just a sizeable portion. Government spending in Ontario is approaching a quarter of the GDP.

No, I'm not. Quebec contributes a great deal in terms of culture. That you can't see it is your problem.

Well if I could see it I could describe it. Evidently that's not the case for you.

I don't know if you realize this, but the people of Quebec pay taxes too. That helps you.

Nope. If someone costs me ten dollars a month to take care of, and they pay me seven dollars a month in rent, they're still a net drain on my wallet.

Also, I don't know if you realize, but having an economy that's $300B larger than it would otherwise be greatly increases Canada's influence.

Which does what for me?