Time for jack to stand up and tell the truth.

[blueblood]

All paid for by oil revenues. High oil prices can provide cover for an appalling amount of mismanagement (It kept the soliet union alive through the 70s). However, Venezuela's oil production is declining partially because the he can't he the state owned facilities running because of inept management.

Your wrong. Venezuela has enjoyed high oil prices and is still a sh*thole, alberta enjoys high oil prices and is the envy of the world.

Brown outs and goon squads anyone?

[nittanylionstorm07]

alberta enjoys high oil prices and is the envy of the world.

Settle down.

[TimG]

Where do our oil revenues go?

Last I checked a large chunk of the Alberta and NF budget comes from oil revenues. The difference is the Alberta and NF oil sector is contining to expand thanks to an environment that attracts foreign investment. Edited April 29, 2011 by TimG

[KeyStone]

All paid for by oil revenues. High oil prices can provide cover for an appalling amount of mismanagement (It kept the soliet union alive through the 70s). However, Venezuela's oil production is declining partially because the he can't he the state owned facilities running because of inept management.

What would you rather do:

Produce three million barrels a day and keep 10% of the revenues

or

Produce two million five hundred thousand barrels a day and keep 40% of the revenues.

Yes, they aren't as efficient with the exodus of some of the oil producing companies who refused to make less profit, but the additional revenues that they take in, from the increased rate, more than offset the decline in capacity.

Furthermore, Venezuela's leadership in OPEC is one of the major reasons why the price of oil went as high as it did. His predecessor constantly flouted and undermined OPEC's quoatas.

[KeyStone]

Your wrong. Venezuela has enjoyed high oil prices and is still a sh*thole, alberta enjoys high oil prices and is the envy of the world.

Brown outs and goon squads anyone?

While it is true that Alberta is a better place to live than Venezuela in most regards, it can not be directly attributed to their free trade and pro-capitalism policies.

Oil is not the only factor in determining wealth and success.

There are many Middle East, and Central American nations with oil that have not prospered.

In the case of Alberta, they are fortunate to be in a socialist country, that has provided all of its citizens have access to free education and health care, thus ensuring an educated work force, and healthy citizens.

[KeyStone]

Last I checked a large chunk of the Alberta and NF budget comes from oil revenues. The difference is the Alberta and NF oil sector is contining to expand thanks to an environment that attracts foreign investment.

You understand how investment works, don't you Tim?

If you are unable to provide the capital yourself, you look for investors. This allows you to have the capital immediately for expansion but limits your future profits.

If you have enough money, you finance it yourself, which means you don't need investors, which means your future profit is maximized. Chavez figured out that if he just kept most of the oil money for Venezuela, they could just use that money to finance their operations instead of being reliant on the demands of foreign investors.

[KeyStone]

I call BS on that one. Maybe some silly poll says they say they are happy, but I been there. Street crime is rampant. Drugs are wild. It is an absolute Sh*thole. And Hugo is the hero who will make it all better next week, or next month, or next year or in heaven, whenever.

Well, I'm sure your anecdotal story is much more credible than the internationally renowned Gallup organization's poll.

[nittanylionstorm07]

In the case of Alberta, they are fortunate to be in a socialist country, that has provided all of its citizens have access to free education and health care, thus ensuring an educated work force, and healthy citizens.

Canada is not a socialist country.

Ugh.

[Lumpy]

Good thing the NDP isn't Socialist then isn't it?

Isn't it? I always thought the NDP was open about their socialist leanings - or is this coming down to semantics? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm interested in your answer.

[KeyStone]

Canada is not a socialist country.

Ugh.

Socialism has a very broad definition, so it's difficult to define precisely which nations are socialist and which aren't.

Measures such as universal health care, CPP, social assistance and free education, are considered to be socialist.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Socialism has a very broad definition, so it's difficult to define precisely which nations are socialist and which aren't.

Measures such as universal health care, CPP, social assistance and free education, are considered to be socialist.

Because a country has socialistic programs doesn't mean the country is socialist.

Canada is a mixed market system, just like the US, UK, Australia, etc.

[blueblood]

While it is true that Alberta is a better place to live than Venezuela in most regards, it can not be directly attributed to their free trade and pro-capitalism policies.

Oil is not the only factor in determining wealth and success.

There are many Middle East, and Central American nations with oil that have not prospered.

In the case of Alberta, they are fortunate to be in a socialist country, that has provided all of its citizens have access to free education and health care, thus ensuring an educated work force, and healthy citizens.

Canada is not a socialist country like some want it to be. Alberta's wealth is attributed to its free trade and capitalist policies. We have good old venezuela to compare to as for not what to do. Education and health care aren't free, they are paid for by tax dollars which are a result of more people creating wealth in turn caused by govt policies which make it easier to do so (capitalism, low taxes, low royalties, free trade).

As for investing. Chavez doesn't have enough money to get the oil out of the ground. The sh*thole his country is is evidence of that. Canada realized it needs capital to get oil out of the ground and as a result alberta is one of the richest places on the planet.

[ToadBrother]

As for investing. Chavez doesn't have enough money to get the oil out of the ground. The sh*thole his country is is evidence of that. Canada realized it needs capital to get oil out of the ground and as a result alberta is one of the richest places on the planet.

And still can't afford the current Conservative Government.

[nittanylionstorm07]

Canada is not a socialist country like some want it to be. Alberta's wealth is attributed to its free trade and capitalist policies. We have good old venezuela to compare to as for not what to do. Education and health care aren't free, they are paid for by tax dollars which are a result of more people creating wealth in turn caused by govt policies which make it easier to do so (capitalism, low taxes, low royalties, free trade).

As for investing. Chavez doesn't have enough money to get the oil out of the ground. The sh*thole his country is is evidence of that. Canada realized it needs capital to get oil out of the ground and as a result alberta is one of the richest places on the planet.

If Alberta is so high-flying and awesome, how come the provincial government continues to struggle financially?

[KeyStone]

Canada is not a socialist country like some want it to be. Alberta's wealth is attributed to its free trade and capitalist policies.

Great, so they won't mind sharing their oil with the rest of the country, since their wealth has nothing to do with that oil?

Next time an NEP type policy comes around, I'm sure Albertans won't put up much of a fuss.

We have good old venezuela to compare to as for not what to do.

Right. Because under the previous leadership, they were doing so well. Taking more money from foreign companies to pay for education, healthcare, and developing infrastructure was a terrible idea - as evidenced by Venezuela continuing to vote Chavez in time and time again, and the recent Gallup poll indicating Venezuelans being the 6th happiest people on the planet.

Education and health care aren't free,

Semantics. If you don't pay taxes because you are too poor, and your children get to go to school without paying, then it's free. If you have no money, and don't pay taxes, but you still get surgery, then it's free.

they are paid for by tax dollars which are a result of more people creating wealth in turn caused by govt policies which make it easier to do so (capitalism, low taxes, low royalties, free trade).

It's certainly the model we're familiar with here. But here's what you don't seem to understand. Throughout most of Latin America, the West has always attempted to ensure that they don't educate their people. They didn't want them to have an educated workforce, because they wanted LA to be dependent on Western technology for extracting oil and minerals, as well as for technology goods. Meanwhile, we get their labour, foods, and resources for next to nothing.

So, they could have continued to have a free economy, and allow foreigners to control pretty much everything, and take all the profits, or they could take control, keep most of that wealth to reinvest, and start educating their people.

As for investing. Chavez doesn't have enough money to get the oil out of the ground.

Well, there is plenty of oil still coming out, although not as much as before.

But now, Venezuels actually benefit from the oil, as opposed to before, when foreign companies took the bulk of the profits.

The sh*thole his country is is evidence of that. Canada realized it needs capital to get oil out of the ground and as a result alberta is one of the richest places on the planet.

If I owned a company, and I needed $100,000 to expand, wouldn't it be better if I came up with that money myself, as opposed to go the Dragons, who would want 40% of my company for $100,000? Why share the profits if you don't have to? Foreign investment is for companies and countries that can't raise the money themselves.

[Scotty]

Well, I certainly don't feel I have that right and I'll be amongst the first to rail against any government that thinks it does.

It should go without saying that the biggest beef I have with conservatives is their determination to have the governments they elect impose their morals and goofy economic beliefs on everyone else.

It's a funny little world we live in isn't it?

So far Harper has resisted imposing any morals on anyone, and his economic program, up until the three amigos forced his hand, had straight runs of surpluses. That likely wouldn't have continued into the recession, but all in all he's been reasonably competent with the finances.

[Scotty]

Good thing the NDP isn't Socialist then isn't it?

I think they think they are...

[Scotty]

Oops, somehow my response to this got missed.

Anyways, you know very well that Harper would have signed up to all of those wars.

Plus, Harper made it pretty obvious that he would have put us into Iraq as well, the most costly of them all.

And it's a pretty safe bet, that Harper would make the 'we don't want our Canadian boys dying in vain' speech to justify keeping Canadian troops dying indefinitely in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than cut our losses, and admit we f'ed up.

Any responsible government is going to stick to it once they're in one of those things. Chretien or Martin would have made the same speeches. And from what I've seen of Layton he's not a man to be pushed off something once he's set his mind to it. If he had us go into Sudan do you think he'd call it off after a few casualties? I don't.

As for Iraq, who knows how it might have gone. The Ausies went in there, stayed for a year or so, took no casualties, and then left.

[Scotty]

Socialism has a very broad definition, so it's difficult to define precisely which nations are socialist and which aren't.

Measures such as universal health care, CPP, social assistance and free education, are considered to be socialist.

Only by the bloody americans.

[TimG]

If I owned a company, and I needed $100,000 to expand, wouldn't it be better if I came up with that money myself, as opposed to go the Dragons, who would want 40% of my company for $100,000?

It would depend on what the Dragon's bring to the equation. Many times they bring connections and marketing clout. In other cases they bring technology that would help. Bottom line: it is often good business to bring in strategic partners.

But you miss the real problem with your analogy: you are talking about a public corporation which, by definition, will turn into a bloated and inefficient entity saddled with a union that constantly demands more than they are worth.

Edited April 30, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Good thing the NDP isn't Socialist then isn't it?

Straight from the NDP constitution:

A core statement from the preamble outlining the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party:

•That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

•To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

•The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.

Scary stuff.

The NDP is a party of ideologues. They are not going to give up on socialism just because they want to be respectable. Hell, look at Keystone: someone who is so caught up in the socialist ideology that he actually believes Venezuela is an example for us. The people who were moderates long since moved to the Liberals.

You can't make the argument that these ideologues are no worse than the evangelicals in the CPC because the evangelicals obesse about things that will have no impact on the majority of Canadians. Socialist ideologues, OTOH, are bent on messing up the economy and that will hurt everyone.

Edited April 30, 2011 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

You can't make the argument that these ideologues are no worse than the evangelicals in the CPC because the evangelicals obesse about things that will have no impact on the majority of Canadians. Socialist ideologues, OTOH, are bent on messing up the economy and that will hurt everyone.

So your argument is that Tory ideologues are less scary because all their nutty policies won't mess with your wallet.

At any rate, and I'll repeat it for the umpteenth time, none of their policies, positions and platforms mean anything because none of them are going to be able to get a majority.

[blueblood]

So your argument is that Tory ideologues are less scary because all their nutty policies won't mess with your wallet.

At any rate, and I'll repeat it for the umpteenth time, none of their policies, positions and platforms mean anything because none of them are going to be able to get a majority.

Actually it does. Even in a minority situation the platform suggests a general direction the govt wants to go. Layton wants to tax and spend, and will get some of that done which could hurt the economy. Bay street isn't in a tizzy for nothing.

[Ottawavalleyboy]

Yeah, we did alright, but that's largely because of our sound banking industry, not because of tax breaks, and huge government spending (particularly in Conservative ridings). I don't think that we have to go from seven consecutive years of surplus, to Harper's government ensuring we'll be running deficits until 2015.

It's funny that the right always complains about tax and spend governments, yet when times get tough, they spend far more than the Liberals. The only difference is that the Liberals can pay for their spending instead of racking up massive deficits.

We already have free health care, secondary education, and pension plans. Yes, adding dental and improving those other programs will cost, but look at the advantages:

Free education - means better educated work force. This is good for businesses who need skilled employees. This means we can compete for the good jobs not shitty assembly line minimum wage jobs with no benefits.

Medical and Basic Dental - again this is a cost that employers won't need to worry about. Do you know how much Ford, and GM pay in health care costs for their employees in the US. Again, this is a way to attract good jobs, not krap ones.

Pension - aside from being great for everyone, this will also alleviate some of the burden from employers - GM was almost crippled from the pension plans. We have CPP already, but it could be boosted, so that our elderly aren't struggling to pay their basic bills.

Well clearly, you don't know this, because you don't seem to understand what an income tax is. It's a tax on profit. So, after all expenses are paid for, after all the dinners, alcohol, and rents are written off as business expenses, after the owner, and his family all draw big salaries, after then do the depreciation, and CCA, and after they reinvest into the company and figure out ways to defer, then they pay tax on what money is left. So, yes, businesses can afford it. No one has ever had to lay off employees because income tax went up. Now, it is possible that some businesses may decide to relocate to a more tax-friendly environment.

It's absolutely astounding how taxes keep going down and down, but the right shrieks about being taxed to death. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor just keeps growing. The whining needs to stop. It's preposterous.

Well Jack is saying that he will LOWER small business tax, so I'm not sure how you have come to that stunning conclusion.

Well, if the NDP win, it will be a minority government that will have to get either Liberal or Conservative support to get anything passed. But, let's wait and see. Sweden has had governments as socialist as the NDP, and they didn't run up massive deficits, go bankrupt or have 25% unemployment.

I don't think we need to double it. But, an increase wouldn't hurt, especially if it is spent on the right things (ie not war planes from Lockheed Martin).

I dont even know where to start on any of this and dont see any point in it. I get business much more than you seem to. Saying that its only taxes on profits is obvious but wth is the point in being in business if the profits are not high enough. Harper had as much to do with the strength of our economy staying strong as the banks did. Taxes keep going down and down? Are you freaking out of your mind? In the last quarter century we have seen the implementation of the GST which was supposed to be a stop gap tax to get us through the last recession, increased fuel taxes which are amounting to being taxed on a tax now thanks to gst, and now in B.C and Ontario the hst just slammed us. The additional hastle and cost of dealing with the hst as a contractor is painfull to say the least. The "more educated" work force you talk about is already here, we dont need to give away the education to get there, nor do we need to increase taxes to do so. When we speak about increasing taxes here it wont just be corporate, Jacks numbers are completely screwed. A 4-5% corporate tax hike on large corporations only will not pay for half the promises so you better bet that the tax cuts to small business wont be there or will simply be sucked out of us somewhere else. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that shows that a left wing government will work well at the federal level nor is there any way in hell that the country can pay for all the promises made by the liberals and ndp. Like I have said countless times less than a third of our population generates income for the economy. If you increase the public sector you decrease the ratio even further while drawing the skilled workforce into the government jobs. Only time will tell, but truthfully if the ndp manage some kind of coalition I have to believe or hope that whoever forms it with them will have the common sense to temper the spending because God knows Bob Rae sure didnt have any.

edit: and mentioning gm and ford as examples of cost is assinine, currently roughly 25% of Canadians dont have coverage for things like dental and drugs much of which is covered for the poor through government subsidies already. On the private sector side it costs me about $80 per employee for short and long term dissability, medical and partial dental coverage. Get the government in this and I have no doubt the cost will triple and the bureaucracy created will bring it up another 3 or 4 times but thats what government does. Allocate money and then spend it all trying to figure out how to properly spend it .

Edited April 30, 2011 by Ottawavalleyboy

[Sandy MacNab]

The NDP is dangerous. For those who want some common-sense "safety nets" the Conservative's policies are the only ones that can assure us that the national treasury has the cash to afford them. Under the NDP, we'd be taxed and spent into national poverty thus the government would eventually be unable to give anyone a helping hand.