Discussion:
Top 10 Reasons Why Alberta Sucks
(too old to reply)
Anonymous
2003-09-07 01:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From February 2000



1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.

2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.

3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.

4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich). Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact. In short, Klein should have his nuts ripped
off with a rusty scalpel and shoved up his ass, then his dead carcass
shipped to the US for medical research in cosmetic surgery.

5. Alberta is the crucible for this political transformation:
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?

6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence. A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.

7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.

8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.

9. The Daishowa - Lubicon dispute represents yet another Alberta-spawned
attack on the rights of Canadians. For a while (until a sane Federal judge
overturned it) an Alberta injunction actually made it illegal to advocate
a boycott of a company's products in public. This battle isn't over,
though. Daishowa has deep pockets.

10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Reason
2003-09-07 01:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
<meaningless trash snipped>

And you can't wait to move here, as soon as you get a job.
Ian King
2003-09-07 06:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
<meaningless trash snipped>
And you can't wait to move here, as soon as you get a job.
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65, nearly
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Reason
2003-09-07 07:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Post by Reason
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
<meaningless trash snipped>
And you can't wait to move here, as soon as you get a job.
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65, nearly
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the world.
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast quantities
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.

How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?

The Give and Take of Confederation:
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)

Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)

*source: Robert Mansell, University of Calgary
Micheal Wilson
2003-09-07 16:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
Post by Reason
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
<meaningless trash snipped>
And you can't wait to move here, as soon as you get a job.
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65,
nearly
Post by Ian King
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the world.
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast quantities
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)
Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)
It is important to make a distinction here regarding equalization payments.
In 1964 the feds changed equalization to include a province's resources.
This was why that year Alberta went from a have not to a have province. I'd
be interested in seeing what Alberta's finances would be, minus their oil
revenues.


Mike
Reason
2003-09-07 17:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
Post by Reason
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
<meaningless trash snipped>
And you can't wait to move here, as soon as you get a job.
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do
with
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before
the
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65,
nearly
Post by Ian King
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
Post by Ian King
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast
quantities
Post by Ian King
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)
Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)
It is important to make a distinction here regarding equalization payments.
In 1964 the feds changed equalization to include a province's resources.
This was why that year Alberta went from a have not to a have province.
I'd
Post by Reason
be interested in seeing what Alberta's finances would be, minus their oil
revenues.
Mike
Considering the way non oil-based industries in Alberta have also prospered,
I'd say its a sure bet that Alberta would still be a net contributor to the
federal coffers without oil.
Ian King
2003-09-08 05:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65,
nearly
Post by Ian King
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the world.
When did Saskatchewan start taking extra royalties on wheat above and beyond
any income tax paid by the grower?

Worth noting that Saskatchewan slipped back to "have not" status under the
Devine government...
Post by Ian King
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries.
Give me a break. BC spent less per capita than the government of Alberta in
all but two years throughout the 1990's. From the Taxpayers Fed, who have
never had a kind thing to say about anyone who isn't a raging conservative:


Year AB BC
'90-91 5,784 4,431
5,806 4,894
6,140 4,956
5,663 5,059
4,984 5,178
'95-96 4,656 5,066
4,592 5,048
4,873 4,874
4,957 4,941
5,550 5,307
'00-01 5,997 5,315
6,526 6,064
Post by Ian King
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
The braggart attitude of Albertans who refust to admit that their province
would not be in the position that it is in without oil and gas is
irritating.
Post by Ian King
How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?
They're the only one that Mansell uses because if he were to include
Alberta's position pre-1960, Confederation wouldn't look like such a bad
deal for all the support that the rest of Canada gave Alberta as it was
maturing.
Post by Ian King
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)
Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)
Note that the two sides of the equation don't add up. Where did the other
money to tranfer to the "have nots" come from? Thin air?
Post by Ian King
*source: Robert Mansell, University of Calgary
Who has made his entire carrer on whining how Alberta is so hard done by,
and selectively including data in order to make his case.

Still cutting and pasting the same little phrases and quotes, and never
thinking for yourself. How typical.
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Reason
2003-09-08 14:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do
with
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before
the
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65,
nearly
Post by Ian King
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
When did Saskatchewan start taking extra royalties on wheat above and beyond
any income tax paid by the grower?
Worth noting that Saskatchewan slipped back to "have not" status under the
Devine government...
...Who did a great deal to head off the inevitable financial crash that
comes in the wake of socialist economic plans.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries.
Give me a break. BC spent less per capita than the government of Alberta in
all but two years throughout the 1990's. From the Taxpayers Fed, who have
never had a kind thing to say about anyone who isn't a raging
Year AB BC
'90-91 5,784 4,431
5,806 4,894
6,140 4,956
5,663 5,059
4,984 5,178
'95-96 4,656 5,066
4,592 5,048
4,873 4,874
4,957 4,941
5,550 5,307
'00-01 5,997 5,315
6,526 6,064
You forgot to adjust for total government revenue per capita. A more useful
stat would be the percentage of government revenue invested in
infrastructure and sustainable development, versus social benefit payouts.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
The braggart attitude of Albertans who refust to admit that their province
would not be in the position that it is in without oil and gas is
irritating.
Post by Ian King
How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?
They're the only one that Mansell uses because if he were to include
Alberta's position pre-1960, Confederation wouldn't look like such a bad
deal for all the support that the rest of Canada gave Alberta as it was
maturing.
How are pre-1960 stats more relevant than post 1960 stats? All it shows is
how Alberta has managed its economy into prosperity despite draconian
federal taxation. ...Unlike others, who have been bailed out time after
time, with billions of dollars which are gone forever.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)
Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)
Note that the two sides of the equation don't add up. Where did the other
money to tranfer to the "have nots" come from? Thin air?
It's called federal revenue, which came from various sources such as import
tarriffs, licensing fees, crown corporations, selling bonds and federal tax.
Add deficit spending to that list.

I recommend Econ 101.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
*source: Robert Mansell, University of Calgary
Who has made his entire carrer on whining how Alberta is so hard done by,
and selectively including data in order to make his case.
I notice you aren't refuting these figures, so how is it whining?
Post by Reason
Still cutting and pasting the same little phrases and quotes, and never
thinking for yourself. How typical.
Typical of what? Someone who has some facts, and not just bile?
Mountain Goat
2003-09-09 03:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do
with
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before
the
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65,
nearly
Post by Ian King
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses
post-1960
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Post by Ian King
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
When did Saskatchewan start taking extra royalties on wheat above and
beyond
Post by Reason
any income tax paid by the grower?
Worth noting that Saskatchewan slipped back to "have not" status under the
Devine government...
...Who did a great deal to head off the inevitable financial crash that
comes in the wake of socialist economic plans.
Is that why the Devine cabinet had a quorum in the PA Penitentiary.
Post by Ian King
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world
into
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries.
Give me a break. BC spent less per capita than the government of Alberta
in
Post by Reason
all but two years throughout the 1990's. From the Taxpayers Fed, who have
never had a kind thing to say about anyone who isn't a raging
Year AB BC
'90-91 5,784 4,431
5,806 4,894
6,140 4,956
5,663 5,059
4,984 5,178
'95-96 4,656 5,066
4,592 5,048
4,873 4,874
4,957 4,941
5,550 5,307
'00-01 5,997 5,315
6,526 6,064
You forgot to adjust for total government revenue per capita. A more useful
stat would be the percentage of government revenue invested in
infrastructure and sustainable development, versus social benefit payouts.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to
federal
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
The braggart attitude of Albertans who refust to admit that their province
would not be in the position that it is in without oil and gas is
irritating.
Post by Ian King
How are post-60's stats irrelevant again?
They're the only one that Mansell uses because if he were to include
Alberta's position pre-1960, Confederation wouldn't look like such a bad
deal for all the support that the rest of Canada gave Alberta as it was
maturing.
How are pre-1960 stats more relevant than post 1960 stats? All it shows is
how Alberta has managed its economy into prosperity despite draconian
federal taxation. ...Unlike others, who have been bailed out time after
time, with billions of dollars which are gone forever.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
the net gain (loss), by province, through federal transfers from the
1960's through the 1990's (billions of 1999' $)
Newfoundland 74
Ontario (81)
Prince Edward Island 19
Manitoba 65
Nova Scotia 120
Saskatchewan 43
New Brunswick 79
Alberta (167)
Quebec 202
British Columbia (9)
Note that the two sides of the equation don't add up. Where did the other
money to tranfer to the "have nots" come from? Thin air?
It's called federal revenue, which came from various sources such as import
tarriffs, licensing fees, crown corporations, selling bonds and federal tax.
Add deficit spending to that list.
I recommend Econ 101.
Post by Reason
Post by Ian King
*source: Robert Mansell, University of Calgary
Who has made his entire carrer on whining how Alberta is so hard done by,
and selectively including data in order to make his case.
I notice you aren't refuting these figures, so how is it whining?
Post by Reason
Still cutting and pasting the same little phrases and quotes, and never
thinking for yourself. How typical.
Typical of what? Someone who has some facts, and not just bile?
News
2003-09-08 22:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the world.
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast quantities
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
VERY good point.
Bill
2003-09-09 02:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Post by Reason
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
Post by Reason
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast
quantities
Post by Reason
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
VERY good point.
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).

Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?

Alberta spent more per capita on programs than any other province
(source, www.taxpayer.com) in 2001-02 and, unlike other provinces, has
no provincial sales taxes.

So, to summarize, Alberta is the most spendthrift province, has no
sales tax, and low (lowest?) personal income taxes. This is all
because Albertans are smarter than everyone else and has nothing
whatsoever to with resource revenues funding 26% of the provincial
budget. Got it.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-09 03:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by Reason
Post by Reason
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
Post by Reason
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast
quantities
Post by Reason
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
VERY good point.
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).
Your figures are wrong, but that's what you get when you get your info from the Alberta PC
sources.
Post by Bill
Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?
Actually there are, but Ralph and his supports told tell you this and you are too dumb to
seak out the information on your own.
Post by Bill
Alberta spent more per capita on programs than any other province
(source, www.taxpayer.com) in 2001-02 and, unlike other provinces, has
no provincial sales taxes.
Bullshit! You have been duped.
Post by Bill
So, to summarize, Alberta is the most spendthrift province, has no
sales tax, and low (lowest?) personal income taxes.
You should learn that comparing apples and organges never works. Just for funny how much
low is this one provincial tax compared to all other provinces.
Post by Bill
This is all
because Albertans are smarter than everyone else and has nothing
whatsoever to with resource revenues funding 26% of the provincial
budget. Got it.
Yeah OK! LMAO
News
2003-09-09 15:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Bill
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).
Your figures are wrong, but that's what you get when you get your info from the Alberta PC
sources.
Ok, then point the way to the "real" numbers.
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Bill
Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?
Actually there are, but Ralph and his supports told tell you this and you are too dumb to
seak out the information on your own.
At least we know it's "Seek" and not "Seak". Before criticizing
someone's intelligence, be sure of your own.
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Bill
Alberta spent more per capita on programs than any other province
(source, www.taxpayer.com) in 2001-02 and, unlike other provinces, has
no provincial sales taxes.
Bullshit! You have been duped.
You disagreeing doesn't make you right. Backup your "Point".
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Bill
So, to summarize, Alberta is the most spendthrift province, has no
sales tax, and low (lowest?) personal income taxes.
You should learn that comparing apples and organges never works. Just for funny how much
low is this one provincial tax compared to all other provinces.
Comparing Taxation from Province to Province is Apples to Apples.
Comparing social spending from Province to Province is Oranges to Oranges.
Did you actually think before writing this post?
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Bill
This is all
because Albertans are smarter than everyone else and has nothing
whatsoever to with resource revenues funding 26% of the provincial
budget. Got it.
Yeah OK! LMAO
I'm more than willing to look at whatever "Proof" you may have to back
up your claims. (Sadly, we all know you have squat)
Bill
2003-09-09 05:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Reason
Post by News
Post by Reason
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
Post by News
Post by Reason
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast
quantities
Post by News
Post by Reason
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
VERY good point.
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).
Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?
Alberta spent more per capita on programs than any other province
(source, www.taxpayer.com) in 2001-02 and, unlike other provinces, has
no provincial sales taxes.
So, to summarize, Alberta is the most spendthrift province, has no
sales tax, and low (lowest?) personal income taxes. This is all
because Albertans are smarter than everyone else and has nothing
whatsoever to with resource revenues funding 26% of the provincial
budget. Got it.
I did a quick look-see at H-Q's 2002 annual report to review the
contribution "the vast quantities of hydro power" had to the budget of
the province.

Hydro Quebec made a net income of C$1.5 billion in 2002. The
generation division (which supplies HQ's domestic customers and HQ's
export markets) made a C$1.556 billion net income (the company's other
divisions ... transmission, distribution, construction, etc., lost a
bit of money overall).

So Quebec' "vast quantities of hydro power" amount to annual income of
roughly $590 million dollars (the $1.556 billion profit in the
generation sector multiplied by 38% of the generation groups sales
going outside Quebec).

Since Quebec has provincial revenues of roughly $50 billion, the $0.5
billion contribution from international (including ON) sales by HQ
amounts to about 1% of provincial revenues. Contrast this with the 26%
of Alberta's revenues that come from resource royalties and the $6
billion projected for the current fiscal year. Keep in mind, also,
that Quebec is more frugal than AB and spends less per capita on
progams.

I could do similar "back of the envelope" calcs. on the contribution
of Sask's wheat, Nflds fish, or BCs forests to their respective
provinces coffers, but I have little doubt that I will find nothing
remotely close to the 20%+ contribution that Alberta's natural
resources provide to the provincial coffers.

Albertans - since I've moved here in 1996 - never cease to remind me
of the rich kid born with the silver spoon in his mouth who wonders
why everyone else doesn't work as hard as they do.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-09 16:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Post by Reason
Post by News
Post by Reason
Saskatchewan sits on the largest supply of high-quality wheat in the
world.
Post by News
Post by Reason
The Maritimes and Ottawa mismanaged the richest fishery in the world into
oblivion. British Columbia squandered a rich resource-based economy on
handouts and punitive laws against industries. Quebec sells vast
quantities
Post by News
Post by Reason
of hydro power to the US and still qualifies for massive federal transfer
payments. Rich mineral resources exist all across the country, yet only
Alberta has managed what it has in a financially-sustainable fashion.
Alberta's reward for good government and massive contributions to federal
coffers is the sociopathic envy of the leaches of those in have-not
provinces who only know how to bite the hand that feeds them.
VERY good point.
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).
Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?
Alberta spent more per capita on programs than any other province
(source, www.taxpayer.com) in 2001-02 and, unlike other provinces, has
no provincial sales taxes.
So, to summarize, Alberta is the most spendthrift province, has no
sales tax, and low (lowest?) personal income taxes. This is all
because Albertans are smarter than everyone else and has nothing
whatsoever to with resource revenues funding 26% of the provincial
budget. Got it.
I did a quick look-see at H-Q's 2002 annual report to review the
contribution "the vast quantities of hydro power" had to the budget of
the province.
Hydro Quebec made a net income of C$1.5 billion in 2002. The
generation division (which supplies HQ's domestic customers and HQ's
export markets) made a C$1.556 billion net income (the company's other
divisions ... transmission, distribution, construction, etc., lost a
bit of money overall).
So Quebec' "vast quantities of hydro power" amount to annual income of
roughly $590 million dollars (the $1.556 billion profit in the
generation sector multiplied by 38% of the generation groups sales
going outside Quebec).
Since Quebec has provincial revenues of roughly $50 billion, the $0.5
billion contribution from international (including ON) sales by HQ
amounts to about 1% of provincial revenues. Contrast this with the 26%
of Alberta's revenues that come from resource royalties and the $6
billion projected for the current fiscal year. Keep in mind, also,
that Quebec is more frugal than AB and spends less per capita on
progams.
I could do similar "back of the envelope" calcs.
and on another envelope you can fit your total knowledge on this topic.
Post by Bill
on the contribution
of Sask's wheat, Nflds fish, or BCs forests to their respective
provinces coffers, but I have little doubt that I will find nothing
remotely close to the 20%+ contribution that Alberta's natural
resources provide to the provincial coffers.
Albertans - since I've moved here in 1996 - never cease to remind me
of the rich kid born with the silver spoon in his mouth who wonders
why everyone else doesn't work as hard as they do.
Well that figures, 1996 eh. No doubt as a under 30 year old your are pretty heavily into
group-think.
GlennMor <>
2003-09-10 16:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill
Roughly 26% of the Alberta governments provincial revenue comes from
royalties from natural resources. (source: Fiscal update,Aug 27 news
release, C$6.4 billion in Resource revenue versus C$23.6 billion of
total revenue, projected amounts for 2003-04 fiscal year).
Is there another province whose natural resources contribute even a
fraction of this amount to their provincial coffers?
Ontario's income (direct and indirect) from the transportation afforded by the
Great Lakes and the Seaway is enormous. They managed to get the federal
government to subsidize their most important natural resource; we had the feds
tax ours half to death.
GlennMor <>
2003-09-07 09:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65
What passed for 'equalization' prior to 1970 was but a pale shadow in comparison
to later years. Alberta paid more into the east and atlantic in 1982 thanm it
had received in such payments throughout all its existence.
News
2003-09-08 22:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Can't refute the point that Alberta's fiscal position has more to do with
its resources than any other factor? Alberta was a welfare case before the
strike at Leduc -- and was in receipt of equalization until 1964-65, nearly
2 decades after that event. No wonder Robert Mansell only uses post-1960
stats in his studies on how Alberta is supposedly hard done by.
I still think that Geography is a factor in Alberta's economic success
(Of course!) but credit has to be given for knowing what to do with the
resources. Getting Oil from the ground to the consumer isn't exactly
*easy*. And knowing how to properly spend the income from those revenues
takes a lot of fiscal intelligence. We all learned that in the 80's when we
realized that overspending kills economies, as does basing the economy
purely on one thing.
Determinator
2003-09-09 03:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
I still think that Geography is a factor in Alberta's economic success
(Of course!) but credit has to be given for knowing what to do with the
resources. Getting Oil from the ground to the consumer isn't exactly
*easy*. And knowing how to properly spend the income from those revenues
takes a lot of fiscal intelligence. We all learned that in the 80's when we
realized that overspending kills economies, as does basing the economy
purely on one thing.
it wasn't that long ago that we would spend those funds on
anything that moved...


(sure paved a lot of roads)
Paul Moore
2003-09-07 02:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
So what you're actually telling us is that as much of a screwball
as "State of Alberta" is there are screwballs on the other side
of the fence every bit as dirt dumb and ignorant.
Congratulations.
Mr.Big
2003-09-07 02:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Well, of course anyplace where YOU are sucks.
Simple solution: leave and it will stop. There are 9 other, perfectly
good provinces to choose from, King Ralph will pay for the one-way bus
ticket.

Or are you trying to reform us from our wicked ways? Since Albertans
are no smarter than children or perhaps retarded cats, you'd better
adopt a more empathetic and compassionate method of persuasion. I
think if you are critical to, or try to force a retarded cat to do
something, it WILL rebel. Your technique may work on the French, which
in case you have not noticed, we ain't.

Now take your G*d D*mned fluoride and GO HOME!
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich). Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact. In short, Klein should have his nuts ripped
off with a rusty scalpel and shoved up his ass, then his dead carcass
shipped to the US for medical research in cosmetic surgery.
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence. A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
9. The Daishowa - Lubicon dispute represents yet another Alberta-spawned
attack on the rights of Canadians. For a while (until a sane Federal judge
overturned it) an Alberta injunction actually made it illegal to advocate
a boycott of a company's products in public. This battle isn't over,
though. Daishowa has deep pockets.
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Black Jacque Shellacque
2003-09-07 02:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anonymous wrote:

<<snip>>

Just once I would like to see someone propose a viable alternative to
Ralph and the PC's, since they are obviously no good for this
province...<eyes rolling>.... All I hear is a lot of complaining and
whining yet the anti-Ralph forces just can't come up with a reasonable
alternative. Show me an alternative, show me someone who isn't going to
lead Alberta down the road to obscurity and oblivion that BC and its
left wing, union infested hegemony have taken. Show me one hint of a
sound and prudent alternative to our current provincial government and I
might honestly consider voting for that alternative. Your whining,
snivelling and complaining however will not sway me away from the way I
vote, it will only strengthen my resolve not to let the mediocrity of
the PC doomsdayers gain any kind of an advantage.
--
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
-Lester B. Pearson
Ian King
2003-09-07 06:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Black Jacque Shellacque
<<snip>>
Just once I would like to see someone propose a viable alternative to
Ralph and the PC's, since they are obviously no good for this
province...<eyes rolling>.... All I hear is a lot of complaining and
whining yet the anti-Ralph forces just can't come up with a reasonable
alternative. Show me an alternative, show me someone who isn't going to
lead Alberta down the road to obscurity and oblivion that BC and its
left wing, union infested hegemony have taken. Show me one hint of a
sound and prudent alternative to our current provincial government and I
might honestly consider voting for that alternative. Your whining,
snivelling and complaining however will not sway me away from the way I
vote, it will only strengthen my resolve not to let the mediocrity of
the PC doomsdayers gain any kind of an advantage.
Frankly, a bale of hay could run Alberta as long as the oil and gas keep
flowing. When you get a third of your revenue from natural resources, you
can have low taxes and still spend more on programs per capita than any
other province, including all of the so-called "socialist" ones. What I'd
like to know is where all that spending in Alberta goes.

(BC's relative decline started a decade before the NDP last came to power.
Don't believe me? Ask Norman Spector, who was kicking around Bill Bennett's
office in the early '80's, and is no friend of the Dippers.)
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Post by Black Jacque Shellacque
--
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
-Lester B. Pearson
Black Jacque Shellacque
2003-09-07 06:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Frankly, a bale of hay could run Alberta as long as the oil and gas keep
flowing. When you get a third of your revenue from natural resources, you
can have low taxes and still spend more on programs per capita than any
other province, including all of the so-called "socialist" ones. What I'd
like to know is where all that spending in Alberta goes.
So read about it. It is no secret:
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/budget_2003/display.cfm?ID=1#
Post by Ian King
(BC's relative decline started a decade before the NDP last came to power.
Don't believe me? Ask Norman Spector, who was kicking around Bill Bennett's
office in the early '80's, and is no friend of the Dippers.)
Ok, I'll bite. You tell me what BC's decline was due to?
--
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
-Lester B. Pearson
Ian King
2003-09-08 05:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Black Jacque Shellacque
Post by Ian King
Frankly, a bale of hay could run Alberta as long as the oil and gas keep
flowing. When you get a third of your revenue from natural resources, you
can have low taxes and still spend more on programs per capita than any
other province, including all of the so-called "socialist" ones. What I'd
like to know is where all that spending in Alberta goes.
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/budget_2003/display.cfm?ID=1#
Post by Ian King
(BC's relative decline started a decade before the NDP last came to power.
Don't believe me? Ask Norman Spector, who was kicking around Bill Bennett's
office in the early '80's, and is no friend of the Dippers.)
Ok, I'll bite. You tell me what BC's decline was due to?
Here are some factors (of the top of my head):
1) Longtime reliance on an industry that's been in a slow decline -- cutting
sticks. There are all sorts of substitutes for wood that there aren't for
oil 'n gas. Unlike gas, you can move pulp, paper, and sticks all over the
world, which means unlimited competition from places with no rules on how
their forests are harvested. International pressure that painted the BC
forest industry as some sort of eco-villains was no help, either.
2) Mining (not a huge part of the economy, but a good source of royalties)
has been hampered by economics as much as regulation. The deposits that were
cheap and easy to extract have been mined out, making for lots of shutdowns
as the cost of extraction got too high -- regulations or not.
3) Limited opportunities to expand that other royalty-producing industry,
the fossil fuels one.
4) Geography and poor proximity to large markets (compared to Southern
Ontario) makes BC less attractive to manufacturers, regardless ofthings like
employment standards or workers' comp rules.
5) The BC governments from the fifties through well into the eighties were
notorious for underfunding education, believing it to be relativeley
unimportant in a province where a high-school grad (or dropout) could get a
job at the mill that paid good enough coin to buy a house, a car, support
the family, and have some left over. Contrast that to places like Ontario
(no matter who was in charge), Quebec after Lesage or even Alberta after
Lougheed. This left BC with a large segment of the population that was
undereducated. That's not a good situation as cutting sticks became less
labour intensive and industries where the jobs required higher education
came along -- most of BC didn't have the sort of workforce that those
industries were looking for. We've been playing catch-up ever since.
6) An uncertainty over land claims that is unique in Canada. Would you want
to invest money in a project exploiting what is now Crown land over a long
period of time when you don't know its legal future?

That's obviously not all of the factors, but it gives you an idea that BC's
problems are a lot more complex than the "ten years of the NDP" argument
mounted by the BC Libs and their sycophants.

(Trust me, if given a reasonably sane alternative to the NDP and the Libs,
I'd be delighted. We seem to have a unique way of electing incompetent boobs
of the left and right here...)
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Bradly Wiebe
2003-09-08 07:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian King
Post by Black Jacque Shellacque
<<snip>>
Just once I would like to see someone propose a viable alternative to
Ralph and the PC's, since they are obviously no good for this
province...<eyes rolling>.... All I hear is a lot of complaining and
whining yet the anti-Ralph forces just can't come up with a reasonable
alternative. Show me an alternative, show me someone who isn't going to
lead Alberta down the road to obscurity and oblivion that BC and its
left wing, union infested hegemony have taken. Show me one hint of a
sound and prudent alternative to our current provincial government and I
might honestly consider voting for that alternative. Your whining,
snivelling and complaining however will not sway me away from the way I
vote, it will only strengthen my resolve not to let the mediocrity of
the PC doomsdayers gain any kind of an advantage.
Frankly, a bale of hay could run Alberta as long as the oil and gas keep
flowing. When you get a third of your revenue from natural resources, you
can have low taxes and still spend more on programs per capita than any
other province, including all of the so-called "socialist" ones. What I'd
like to know is where all that spending in Alberta goes.
Equalization payments to your province.
Post by Ian King
(BC's relative decline started a decade before the NDP last came to power.
Don't believe me? Ask Norman Spector, who was kicking around Bill Bennett's
office in the early '80's, and is no friend of the Dippers.)
--
ian a. king / east vancouver, bc / ianking [at] shaw [dot] ca
more at http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com
"we exhort, you comply"
Post by Black Jacque Shellacque
--
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects."
-Lester B. Pearson
--
To reply to this email, change wash to shaw.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-07 04:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Too funny! LMAO
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich). Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact. In short, Klein should have his nuts ripped
off with a rusty scalpel and shoved up his ass, then his dead carcass
shipped to the US for medical research in cosmetic surgery.
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence. A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
9. The Daishowa - Lubicon dispute represents yet another Alberta-spawned
attack on the rights of Canadians. For a while (until a sane Federal judge
overturned it) an Alberta injunction actually made it illegal to advocate
a boycott of a company's products in public. This battle isn't over,
though. Daishowa has deep pockets.
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Rockboy
2003-09-07 08:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm confused, this looks like a Top Ten Reasons Why Alberta is Better
Than Where You Live list.
--
Rockboy

I think my life is passing me by
Micheal Wilson
2003-09-07 16:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Anonymous" <***@ecn.org> wrote in message news:***@ecn.org...


Alberta doesn't suck.


Mike
Reason
2003-09-07 17:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Micheal Wilson
Alberta doesn't suck.
Mike
The "Canada sucks" websites are being updated to exclude Alberta as we
speak.
gigi
2003-09-12 23:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Isn't Canadasucks.com owner is a fucking foreigner who is still piss on us
for not support the invasion on Iraq?
Post by Reason
Post by Micheal Wilson
Alberta doesn't suck.
Mike
The "Canada sucks" websites are being updated to exclude Alberta as we
speak.
Dave Anderson
2003-09-07 19:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
<snip.. the rest is repetative crap>

Sounds like you are a socialist. A socialist is someone who has a small
brain, sees and envies what other people have and uses the government to
extort it from those that have been more sucessful. Socialists foster poor
behaviour, like why work if I can get welfare! A dangerous greed. But
government politicians, especially Ottawa types love people like you as your
easy like sheep to focus your anger to the wrong place.

Now if Ontario and Quebec did their part all Canadians would be better off.
Having a poor national economy deflates wages for everyone. High taxes
lower wages. And thuus all Canadians suffer when a confderation partner
becomes a looser.

Why should Albertians give a rats ass for the rest of confederation? They
have no more advanatage - Ontario and Quebec have trees and government built
hydro dams. Each has farming. If anything, being more industrialized they
should do better. But the drain of socialism is too high.

Alberta should leave confederation as it is fruitless and naive for any
westerner to think easterners are going to get a grip on reality any time
soon.

Ralph's strength is that he is relatively new to politics and less corrupt.
Lets face facts, professional politicians spend years honing how to lie to
the public and get away with it. They learn to manipulate small minds of
the majority. Canadians spend far too little time examining their
politician's lies. Eastern politicians love people like you, as like sheep
they are easy to preoccupy. Then you luck out and get someone like Ralph
who cut down on using the public purse for special intrests.

Canada is destrying itself from Ottawa. Ottawa is fostering this for
political control at the expense of Canada. The difference is that Alberta
for one, and BC for another would benefit quite a bit to add some stars to
the American flag, or to become the independant country of "Western Canada".
The difference between Quebec and Alberta, is that Quebec can't afford to
leave confederation. Where as Alberta would economically benefit greatly.

Actually, your statements tell me your poorly travelled and have certainly
not spent much time in the US. Inequality of rich and poor exists
everywhere on the planet. But it is part of human nature. ut people in a
democracy and in a good free economy do enjoy the best standard of living
more so than anywhere else. If you don't think so, move to the USSR.

Other provinces pay more for welfare, the welfare recipients would move.
Heck, I would move to where I got paid more in a heart beat. But good old
socialism has it backwards, you want to attract jobs not welfare cases.

If you don't like Microsoft, then use Linux. In fact many are doing just
that. Or write your own. Or adopt OpenBSD... oops you hate Albertian so
you would be better to use FreeBSD.

I know first hand that this concept your touting is flawed as hell. When
the government taxes more, it doesn't mater how it reduces currency in
circulation. The middle class has always payed their way and them sum.
Ottawa corporate welfare and low end lazy welfare types live off of the
taxes collected. Yet provide nothing in return. Why shouldn't someone
registering a boat or plane pay a registration fee that is higher? By your
own argument low goverment fees subsidizes the rich who might have 4 cars
and not one.

Dollars convert to toys. He with the most used toys at the end wins. It is
just that people who don't think and work want the government to supply the
toys. Socialist types generally get envious of others who have more and use
government to to cover their lazy asses.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-09 22:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole
better
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao
himself
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
couldn't bankrupt this province.
<snip.. the rest is repetative crap>
The small-minded, zero-sum mentality that forms the foundation of
leftism/socialism is very evident here. The idea that all good things must
come from taking away from others is a stone-age idea.
The truth of course, is that good things come from synergies created by
people working together. Alberta has created a good business climate where
benefits are created by partnerships between employers, employees,
industries and consumers. Human and social needs are well-met in such a
climate, after all, the best social program is a healthy economy.
Bullshit! What little labour law this province has is regularly breached by many Alberta
businesses. For example, a common practice in the hospitality industry throughout Alberta
is to deduct from the employees any monetary losses for thief and cash errors. This is
clearly against Alberta's Employment Standards section (12), but hey it's been going on
for years. Most Albertans that are regular customers of Alberta restaurants and bars are
well aware of this.

One restaurant chain in Edmonton has had complaints against them for this practice so
they have come up with a new way to stick it to there minimum wage employees. They have
asked all their waitresses to bring their own money in to use as the float. IOW these
employees are being asked to supply this company with some of the needed working capital.
Employees are cooperating because they are scared to displease their employer. Most of
these employees are students.

There are many more examples of anti-labour behavior throughout Alberta and not just in
the hospitality industry. Some of this behavior is the policy of the Alberta government.
Just look at what they have done to WCB.

REASON, your finger pointing is no a substitute for knowledge. However, I understand this
is your worm's eye view of the world.
Post by Anonymous
For some odd reason, the neolithic leftist/socialist thinks wealth and
prosperity can be created by moving things around; subsidies, taxes,
equalization payments, social handouts... It's just simple math, no wealth
is created that way. They also think that those entities that create wealth
and feed the economy are evil and must be eliminated in some way.
In spite of decades of consistent failures in socialism, unbelievably, these
people continue to flog this deadhorse philosophy, seemingly incogniscent of
the illogic of it. Citing examples of Scandinavian or Chinese socialist
success stories, is bogus, because those economies exist in spite of
socialism, not because of it. In fact they owe their modest measure of
success to the capitalism that is allowed to exist within.
Reason
2003-09-09 23:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole
better
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao
himself
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
couldn't bankrupt this province.
<snip.. the rest is repetative crap>
The small-minded, zero-sum mentality that forms the foundation of
leftism/socialism is very evident here. The idea that all good things must
come from taking away from others is a stone-age idea.
The truth of course, is that good things come from synergies created by
people working together. Alberta has created a good business climate where
benefits are created by partnerships between employers, employees,
industries and consumers. Human and social needs are well-met in such a
climate, after all, the best social program is a healthy economy.
Bullshit! What little labour law this province has is regularly breached by many Alberta
businesses. For example, a common practice in the hospitality industry throughout Alberta
is to deduct from the employees any monetary losses for thief and cash errors. This is
clearly against Alberta's Employment Standards section (12), but hey it's been going on
for years. Most Albertans that are regular customers of Alberta restaurants and bars are
well aware of this.
Sounds like a subject very near and dear to you. Are you a busboy perhaps?
Post by Chris M Tyler
One restaurant chain in Edmonton has had complaints against them for this practice so
they have come up with a new way to stick it to there minimum wage employees. They have
asked all their waitresses to bring their own money in to use as the float. IOW these
employees are being asked to supply this company with some of the needed working capital.
Employees are cooperating because they are scared to displease their employer. Most of
these employees are students.
There are many more examples of anti-labour behavior throughout Alberta and not just in
the hospitality industry. Some of this behavior is the policy of the Alberta government.
Just look at what they have done to WCB.
And this is bad, why?
Post by Chris M Tyler
REASON, your finger pointing is no a substitute for knowledge. However, I understand this
is your worm's eye view of the world.
Post by Anonymous
For some odd reason, the neolithic leftist/socialist thinks wealth and
prosperity can be created by moving things around; subsidies, taxes,
equalization payments, social handouts... It's just simple math, no wealth
is created that way. They also think that those entities that create wealth
and feed the economy are evil and must be eliminated in some way.
In spite of decades of consistent failures in socialism, unbelievably, these
people continue to flog this deadhorse philosophy, seemingly incogniscent of
the illogic of it. Citing examples of Scandinavian or Chinese socialist
success stories, is bogus, because those economies exist in spite of
socialism, not because of it. In fact they owe their modest measure of
success to the capitalism that is allowed to exist within.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-10 09:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative
wealth
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge
the fact
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they
stole
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
better
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially
in
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao
himself
Post by Dave Anderson
Post by Anonymous
couldn't bankrupt this province.
<snip.. the rest is repetative crap>
The small-minded, zero-sum mentality that forms the foundation of
leftism/socialism is very evident here. The idea that all good things
must
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
come from taking away from others is a stone-age idea.
The truth of course, is that good things come from synergies created
by
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
people working together. Alberta has created a good business climate
where
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
benefits are created by partnerships between employers, employees,
industries and consumers. Human and social needs are well-met in such
a
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
climate, after all, the best social program is a healthy economy.
Bullshit! What little labour law this province has is regularly breached
by many Alberta
Post by Chris M Tyler
businesses. For example, a common practice in the hospitality industry
throughout Alberta
Post by Chris M Tyler
is to deduct from the employees any monetary losses for thief and cash
errors. This is
Post by Chris M Tyler
clearly against Alberta's Employment Standards section (12), but hey it's
been going on
Post by Chris M Tyler
for years. Most Albertans that are regular customers of Alberta
restaurants and bars are
Post by Chris M Tyler
well aware of this.
Sounds like a subject very near and dear to you. Are you a busboy perhaps?
Post by Chris M Tyler
One restaurant chain in Edmonton has had complaints against them for
this practice so
Post by Chris M Tyler
they have come up with a new way to stick it to there minimum wage
employees. They have
Post by Chris M Tyler
asked all their waitresses to bring their own money in to use as the
float. IOW these
Post by Chris M Tyler
employees are being asked to supply this company with some of the needed
working capital.
Post by Chris M Tyler
Employees are cooperating because they are scared to displease their
employer. Most of
Post by Chris M Tyler
these employees are students.
There are many more examples of anti-labour behavior throughout Alberta
and not just in
Post by Chris M Tyler
the hospitality industry. Some of this behavior is the policy of the
Alberta government.
Post by Chris M Tyler
Just look at what they have done to WCB.
And this is bad, why?
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy I expected
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting Albertan.
News
2003-09-10 19:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy I expected
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting Albertan.
Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack it
here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us "Tories"
out of it.
Reason
2003-09-11 02:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Chris M Tyler
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy
I
Post by Chris M Tyler
expected
Post by Chris M Tyler
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting
Albertan.
Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack it
here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us "Tories"
out of it.
Not to worry, you know you've won when you're opponent has nothing but dirt
to throw.
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-11 04:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Chris M Tyler
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy
I
Post by Chris M Tyler
expected
Post by Chris M Tyler
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting
Albertan.
Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack it
here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us
"Tories"
Post by Chris M Tyler
out of it.
Not to worry, you know you've won when you're opponent has nothing but dirt
to throw.
This response is like your last one; empty. I posted some detailed examples of about
Alberta's shitty employment standards and you had nothing to say. Just a snide remark
along with your previous post of the typical babbling bullshit you've learned to parrot
from your pro big corporate leader Ralphie. In fact Alberta has the lowest levels of
collective bargaining per capita in the country. You can't debate that because like so
many Tories in this province you no nothing other then what you have been fed by your
government for the past 32 years.

http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991217348&Language=EN

Can you say "bumpkin".
GlennMor <>
2003-09-11 05:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
In fact Alberta has the lowest levels of
collective bargaining per capita in the country. You can't debate that because...
Why would we want to 'debate' that? The low levels of union interference in
productivity is part of the big advantage of working here.
Ryan Dorosh
2003-09-11 16:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Lowest levels of collective bargaining? Good.
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by News
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Chris M Tyler
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy
I
Post by Chris M Tyler
expected
Post by Chris M Tyler
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting
Albertan.
Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack it
here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us
"Tories"
Post by Chris M Tyler
out of it.
Not to worry, you know you've won when you're opponent has nothing but dirt
to throw.
This response is like your last one; empty. I posted some detailed examples of about
Alberta's shitty employment standards and you had nothing to say. Just a snide remark
along with your previous post of the typical babbling bullshit you've learned to parrot
from your pro big corporate leader Ralphie. In fact Alberta has the lowest levels of
collective bargaining per capita in the country. You can't debate that because like so
many Tories in this province you no nothing other then what you have been fed by your
government for the past 32 years.
http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991217348&Language=EN
Can you say "bumpkin".
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-11 18:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ryan Dorosh
Lowest levels of collective bargaining? Good.
Why is that good? Unless, of course, you are an employer.
News
2003-09-11 19:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Ryan Dorosh
Lowest levels of collective bargaining? Good.
Why is that good? Unless, of course, you are an employer.
We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost their
purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are by-and-large
greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people against.
Diogenes
2003-09-11 21:41:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost their
purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are by-and-large
greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people against.
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.

I know this because I was successful in a lawsuit against
them for my profit share entitlement. I got everything I
asked for, plus costs. At no time did they make any offer
and they used whatever legal means they could to defend
themselves. I was in court no less than four times to kill
their motions for dismissal and such. I suspect their legal
bills from this case were substantially more than the court
ordered settlement.

I could name 10 other people who are very bitter about their
WestJet experience. I can cite two Canada Labour Board
cases where WestJet dragged out the proceedings as long as
possible only to lose BIG time.

WestJet is modeled after SouthWest Airlines, the most
successful airline in the states. SouthWest Airlines is
also the MOST heavily unionized airline in the states.

So, NEWS, do you have a ready explanation for this dichotomy?

BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.

If you even talk about unionizing at WJ, you will be fired,
no question. Clive can just dip into the profit share pool
to hire the legal sharks necessary to defend the indefensible.

-Dio ~ smashing icons for good reasons
News
2003-09-11 22:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.
I will admit that I forgot my typical "Most unions" or "Unions are
typically...." stuff in that post. I have seen unions do some good things
in the past, however "Unions are typically...." corrupt and ineffective -
picking fights when they really shouldn't, and forgetting why they exist
when big things come up.
Post by Diogenes
I could name 10 other people who are very bitter about their
WestJet experience. I can cite two Canada Labour Board
cases where WestJet dragged out the proceedings as long as
possible only to lose BIG time.
I had the opportunity to work with someone that had been with WestJet.
They told me (More or less) the same type of story. Good company to work
for (Overall) but from time to time there were.....well, interesting things.
And when she left there were some financial issues as well. So your story
(sadly) doesn't really surprise me.
Post by Diogenes
WestJet is modeled after SouthWest Airlines, the most
successful airline in the states. SouthWest Airlines is
also the MOST heavily unionized airline in the states.
So, NEWS, do you have a ready explanation for this dichotomy?
Not really. I don't know the exact situation, but I will mention one
thing. It's very possible that WestJet is modeled after SouthWest, but
there may be significant differences between the two companies.
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
Well I have a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, it could very
well be that the profit sharing agreements are different - making the
payouts different. (Seems a logical/reasonable explanation) It's also
possible that Clive Beddoe has certain bonuses etc structured into his
contract that others do not have. The bottom line is that while the two
airlines may be similar, it's like comparing a Red Wine to a White Wine.
Post by Diogenes
If you even talk about unionizing at WJ, you will be fired,
no question. Clive can just dip into the profit share pool
to hire the legal sharks necessary to defend the indefensible.
I've heard that as well. But you know, I don't think that is a
completely *bad* thing. What was the single biggest reason for the demise
of Canadian and (soon) Air Canada? Salaries. The union has managed to
achieve a level of short-term success with increased salaries, but now
helped to drive two major carriers into the ground. (One out of business
completely) As far as I'm concerned, if WestJet can continue it's success
without a union (While mantaining a safe workplace) than great! It used to
be that Unions were watchdogs for the employees. We have streams and
streams of laws and regulations now to cover employee safety etc. And that
is why I think that Unions are (For the most part) becoming more and more
pointless.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 07:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
I will admit that I forgot my typical "Most unions" or "Unions are
typically...." stuff in that post. I have seen unions do some good things
in the past, however "Unions are typically...." corrupt and ineffective -
picking fights when they really shouldn't, and forgetting why they exist
when big things come up.
There certainly is room for improvement in many unions.
Southwest is a model of a successful partnership with its
unions. They still have profit sharing.
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
I could name 10 other people who are very bitter about their
WestJet experience. I can cite two Canada Labour Board
cases where WestJet dragged out the proceedings as long as
possible only to lose BIG time.
I had the opportunity to work with someone that had been with WestJet.
They told me (More or less) the same type of story. Good company to work
for (Overall) but from time to time there were.....well, interesting things.
And when she left there were some financial issues as well. So your story
(sadly) doesn't really surprise me.
It happens more than most would imagine.
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
WestJet is modeled after SouthWest Airlines, the most
successful airline in the states. SouthWest Airlines is
also the MOST heavily unionized airline in the states.
So, NEWS, do you have a ready explanation for this dichotomy?
Not really. I don't know the exact situation, but I will mention one
thing. It's very possible that WestJet is modeled after SouthWest, but
there may be significant differences between the two companies.
There are more similarities than differences, except for the
unions. Both have profit sharing and share purchase plans
for all, stock options for the pilots, etc. They fly only a
single model of plane, they focus quick service and being on
time.

The WestJet model is a carbon copy of the Southwest business
model.

The differences? SW is 10 times the size and pays a
dividend. I posed the dividend question to Mr. Beddoe at
the last shareholders meeting (yes, I am still a
shareholder) and he was quite adamant that there was no
dividend in the foreseeable future.
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
Well I have a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, it could very
well be that the profit sharing agreements are different - making the
payouts different. (Seems a logical/reasonable explanation) It's also
possible that Clive Beddoe has certain bonuses etc structured into his
contract that others do not have. The bottom line is that while the two
airlines may be similar, it's like comparing a Red Wine to a White Wine.
Like maybe Dom Perinon to Red Devil wine from Gimli.
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
If you even talk about unionizing at WJ, you will be fired,
no question. Clive can just dip into the profit share pool
to hire the legal sharks necessary to defend the indefensible.
I've heard that as well. But you know, I don't think that is a
completely *bad* thing.
Are you a lawyer, News? That's a scary statement.

What was the single biggest reason for the demise
Post by News
of Canadian and (soon) Air Canada? Salaries. The union has managed to
achieve a level of short-term success with increased salaries, but now
helped to drive two major carriers into the ground. (One out of business
completely) As far as I'm concerned, if WestJet can continue it's success
without a union (While mantaining a safe workplace) than great! It used to
be that Unions were watchdogs for the employees. We have streams and
streams of laws and regulations now to cover employee safety etc. And that
is why I think that Unions are (For the most part) becoming more and more
pointless.
WestJet's biggest asset is Robert Milton. I'm sorry, but
Canadian also had a succession of boneheads in management
that should take the most credit for going under. Salaries
had very little to do with it, unless, of course you are
talking about the pilots 'union'.

But that's kind of like talking about the NHL players union.
Puh-leeze!
News
2003-09-12 16:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
There certainly is room for improvement in many unions.
Southwest is a model of a successful partnership with its
unions. They still have profit sharing.
And actually, UPS has a very good relationship with the local Teamsters
Union. Like I've been saying all along, Unions aren't useless at all, but
they are becoming more and more uneeded.
Post by Diogenes
The differences? SW is 10 times the size and pays a
dividend. I posed the dividend question to Mr. Beddoe at
the last shareholders meeting (yes, I am still a
shareholder) and he was quite adamant that there was no
dividend in the foreseeable future.
I wonder if that's because they're using to money to help finance the
continued growth?? It seems reasonable.
Post by Diogenes
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
Well I have a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, it could very
well be that the profit sharing agreements are different - making the
payouts different. (Seems a logical/reasonable explanation) It's also
possible that Clive Beddoe has certain bonuses etc structured into his
contract that others do not have. The bottom line is that while the two
airlines may be similar, it's like comparing a Red Wine to a White Wine.
Like maybe Dom Perinon to Red Devil wine from Gimli.
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
If you even talk about unionizing at WJ, you will be fired,
no question. Clive can just dip into the profit share pool
to hire the legal sharks necessary to defend the indefensible.
I've heard that as well. But you know, I don't think that is a
completely *bad* thing.
Are you a lawyer, News? That's a scary statement.
Certainly not! (Ouch, that one hurt!)
Diogenes
2003-09-12 07:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.
I will admit that I forgot my typical "Most unions" or "Unions are
typically...." stuff in that post. I have seen unions do some good things
in the past, however "Unions are typically...." corrupt and ineffective -
picking fights when they really shouldn't, and forgetting why they exist
when big things come up.
Post by Diogenes
I could name 10 other people who are very bitter about their
WestJet experience. I can cite two Canada Labour Board
cases where WestJet dragged out the proceedings as long as
possible only to lose BIG time.
I had the opportunity to work with someone that had been with WestJet.
They told me (More or less) the same type of story. Good company to work
for (Overall) but from time to time there were.....well, interesting things.
And when she left there were some financial issues as well. So your story
(sadly) doesn't really surprise me.
Post by Diogenes
WestJet is modeled after SouthWest Airlines, the most
successful airline in the states. SouthWest Airlines is
also the MOST heavily unionized airline in the states.
So, NEWS, do you have a ready explanation for this dichotomy?
Not really. I don't know the exact situation, but I will mention one
thing. It's very possible that WestJet is modeled after SouthWest, but
there may be significant differences between the two companies.
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
Well I have a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, it could very
well be that the profit sharing agreements are different - making the
payouts different. (Seems a logical/reasonable explanation) It's also
possible that Clive Beddoe has certain bonuses etc structured into his
contract that others do not have. The bottom line is that while the two
airlines may be similar, it's like comparing a Red Wine to a White Wine.
Post by Diogenes
If you even talk about unionizing at WJ, you will be fired,
no question. Clive can just dip into the profit share pool
to hire the legal sharks necessary to defend the indefensible.
I've heard that as well. But you know, I don't think that is a
completely *bad* thing. What was the single biggest reason for the demise
of Canadian and (soon) Air Canada? Salaries. The union has managed to
achieve a level of short-term success with increased salaries, but now
helped to drive two major carriers into the ground. (One out of business
completely) As far as I'm concerned, if WestJet can continue it's success
without a union (While mantaining a safe workplace) than great! It used to
be that Unions were watchdogs for the employees. We have streams and
streams of laws and regulations now to cover employee safety etc. And that
is why I think that Unions are (For the most part) becoming more and more
pointless.
Back in 1986, my wife and I walked away from our second home
and a $25,000 down payment after the NEP had royally fucked
the Calgary economy.

I went through the federal governments mediation and
adjudication processes with WestJet. It takes forever (more
than a year for resolution) and they are simply not prepared
to deal with anything more substantial than vacation pay.

We're from the government and were hear to help you. NOT!

The provincial court process was over in six months and that
is with four court appearances.

I would not recommend it for the faint of heart however.
It's better to belong to a union.
Determinator
2003-09-13 04:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
Well I have a couple of thoughts on that. First of all, it could very
well be that the profit sharing agreements are different - making the
payouts different. (Seems a logical/reasonable explanation) It's also
possible that Clive Beddoe has certain bonuses etc structured into his
contract that others do not have. The bottom line is that while the two
airlines may be similar, it's like comparing a Red Wine to a White Wine.
actually you shouild take a look at the debt payments......
Diogenes
2003-09-12 07:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
BTW, Clive Beddoe collected over $4 million in compensation
in 2002 from WestJet, a year in which the profit sharing was
minuscule. James Parker, CEO of Southwest, collected less
than 600,000 US in the same year.
And actually I have one other thing to say. This comment really bugs
the crap out of me. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just get something off
my chest. You complained that Clive Beddoe got $4 Million in compensation
that year, while others got a pittance in profit share. To that I say, big
fat hairy deal. Did the employees get paid? Yes. And that's all anyone
should expect. But rather than saying "Thank You" for the extra money (via
the profit share) people complain that their *extra* money wasn't enough.
WestJet does NOT pay big salaries. Profit sharing, share
purchases, travel benefits etc, are all pushed front and
center in the hiring process. If the company makes money,
so do you.

That's all fine and good, I'm quite willing to risk that.
But they play BIG COMPANY hardball. The profit sharing I had
to fight for was the largest payout in company history and
amounted to 50% of my salary. That is significant coin my
friend.
That is beyond disgusting if you ask me. And it's prevelant everywhere. 18
year olds expect to be driving BMWs because they think they've earned it by
working a single double-shift. It's a bogus attitude and quite frankly I'm
sick of it. When I started (for example) my most recent job I negotiated my
own salary, pushed for a little extra in vacation time and benefits and that
was the end of it. I'm getting what I deserve, as I negotiated. Only once
have I ever received anything "Extra". It was $500 in cash as a thank you
for bringing a big project in early and under-budget. (By almost $40,000)
By the logic used in your post I should have told them to fuck off, and
demanded $1000.
That's not my logic.

To put things in perspective News, I was 47 at the time with
two kids, one in high school. I have obligations. I also
had a line of credit that I had to arrange because I took a
20% cut in salary in when I signed on to WestJet. Share
purchases are held in escrow for a year; profit sharing is
paid every 6 months.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight - but do you see why this gets me
hot under the collar? It's like buying a car for less than it's
manufacturing cost, and then demanding a discount. It's silly.
No, it just business. A deal is a deal. A promise is a promise.
News
2003-09-12 16:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
No, it just business. A deal is a deal. A promise is a promise.
All of the prvious typing comes down to this:

If the "Profit Sharing" is billed as a component of your actual salary
(As you've basically described) than I agree 100% with you. Absolutely.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 17:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Diogenes
No, it just business. A deal is a deal. A promise is a promise.
If the "Profit Sharing" is billed as a component of your actual salary
(As you've basically described) than I agree 100% with you. Absolutely.
<grin> - You came to the same conclusion the judge did.
News
2003-09-12 17:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
Post by News
If the "Profit Sharing" is billed as a component of your actual salary
(As you've basically described) than I agree 100% with you. Absolutely.
<grin> - You came to the same conclusion the judge did.
Good to hear actually. Heh, a deal is a deal. (As you put it)

My second little rant (honestly) had nothing to do with you
specifically, it was more of a total social comment. Just last night I got
to listen to a friend complain that his quarterly bonus cheque wasn't
enough. I made it quite clear to him that he should be happy to get
anything. He earns a lot already (He's Low-Level Management with a
Mid-Level Manager's Salary) and that he really shouldn't "Expect" anything
more. For what it's worth, once we talked about it he agreed. The company
treats him very well already, anything on top of it is, well, a bonus!
Diogenes
2003-09-12 07:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1) First of all, you have not demonstrated that WestJet has had more legal
challenges from it's employees than it's unionized competitor, Air Canada.
Nor was I attempting to. Air Canada was 10 times the size
of Westjet.
2) Secondly, you fail to realize that a successful airline provides a lot
of jobs. An airline that has been sunk by it's union does not.
Now exactly which airline has been 'sunk' by it's union.
Canadian, Canada 3000, Greyhound, Air Transat?
Chris M Tyler
2003-09-12 08:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
Post by News
We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost their
purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are by-and-large
greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people against.
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.
1) First of all, you have not demonstrated that WestJet has had more legal
challenges from it's employees than it's unionized competitor, Air Canada.
2) Secondly, you fail to realize that a successful airline provides a lot
of jobs. An airline that has been sunk by it's union does not.
In case you've had your head up your ass again, WestJet is in trouble too.
The amazing thing about people like you Reason is that your employer could be screwing you
and you wouldn't even know. And if you did figure out, it would be ok with you. This has
been my experience working with many Albertans. Dumb as a sack of hammers. Bumpkins!
santa
2003-09-12 12:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A sack of hammers you say that smart eh? everyone a stockboy.

claus
"Chris M Tyler" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 04:21:09 GMT, "Reason" <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >
: > "Diogenes" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message
: > news:s_58b.15983$***@pd7tw3no...
: > > News wrote:
: > >
: > > >
: > > > We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost
their
: > > > purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are
by-and-large
: > > > greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people
against.
: > > >
: > > >
: > >
: > > Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
: > > spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
: > > when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
: > > damned, it's all about saving money.
: > >
: >
: > 1) First of all, you have not demonstrated that WestJet has had more
legal
: > challenges from it's employees than it's unionized competitor, Air
Canada.
: >
: > 2) Secondly, you fail to realize that a successful airline provides a
lot
: > of jobs. An airline that has been sunk by it's union does not.
:
: In case you've had your head up your ass again, WestJet is in trouble too.
: The amazing thing about people like you Reason is that your employer could
be screwing you
: and you wouldn't even know. And if you did figure out, it would be ok
with you. This has
: been my experience working with many Albertans. Dumb as a sack of
hammers. Bumpkins!
:
Reason
2003-09-12 13:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Diogenes
Post by News
We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost their
purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are by-and-large
greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people against.
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.
1) First of all, you have not demonstrated that WestJet has had more legal
challenges from it's employees than it's unionized competitor, Air Canada.
2) Secondly, you fail to realize that a successful airline provides a lot
of jobs. An airline that has been sunk by it's union does not.
In case you've had your head up your ass again, WestJet is in trouble too.
The amazing thing about people like you Reason is that your employer could be screwing you
and you wouldn't even know. And if you did figure out, it would be ok with you. This has
been my experience working with many Albertans. Dumb as a sack of hammers. Bumpkins!
Anything of any substance to add?
Tim
2003-09-12 12:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
Post by News
We've had this discussion millions of times. Unions have lost their
purpose. They've become companies of their own - and are by-and-large
greedier and more corrupt than any company they "Defend" people against.
Unions have there place. I used to work for WestJet. In
spite of their glowing reputation, they can be real bastards
when it comes to their treatment of employees. Ethics be
damned, it's all about saving money.
1) First of all, you have not demonstrated that WestJet has had more legal
challenges from it's employees than it's unionized competitor, Air Canada.
2) Secondly, you fail to realize that a successful airline provides a lot
of jobs. An airline that has been sunk by it's union does not.
And a farmer who can get his labour for the cost of room and board can
provide more jobs than a farmer who pays a decent wage to farm hands.
Bring back slavery.
GlennMor <>
2003-09-11 23:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Ryan Dorosh
Lowest levels of collective bargaining? Good.
Why is that good? Unless, of course, you are an employer.
Union activity tends to sclerotize all operations of companies, large and small
(though the situation is typically worse in larger ones).
News
2003-09-11 16:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
This response is like your last one; empty. I posted some detailed examples of about
Alberta's shitty employment standards and you had nothing to say. Just a snide remark
along with your previous post of the typical babbling bullshit you've learned to parrot
from your pro big corporate leader Ralphie. In fact Alberta has the lowest levels of
collective bargaining per capita in the country. You can't debate that because like so
many Tories in this province you no nothing other then what you have been fed by your
government for the past 32 years.
http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991217348&Language=EN
The fact that there is so little Union crap to wade through is what
makes Alberta's economy so strong. The reason BC's forestry industry is
going under isn't because a lack of trees, it's because (Hyper) inflated
salaries in the industry have made the product uncompetitive.
Ryan Dorosh
2003-09-11 16:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What's the beef with Alberta? It's where all my friends now live, and they
have more opportunity than what they can have in any other province. Not to
mention their salary is quite a bit higher. NOT a single one of them would
move home. If it's so horrible why does it lead Canada for growth, and why
do people leave in droves to move there? All these negative people sound so
full of envy b/c maybe the private sector growth is outpacing the
labour/union sector growth. So what. I'm unionized. What does it do for me?
Not much in the end. I've worked many years in the private sector and they
didn't send chain me to a desk. The treatment was the same as my union job
now. Even the wage and benefits. Both are great in my opinion and each has
it's pros and cons.
Post by News
Post by Anonymous
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
The business executives I know worked their balls off to get where they are.
They didn't get the job from thin air. Years upon years of schooling and
long hours of work afterwards got them to where they are. Some have more
years in school in gruelling majors that most, 99%, of the population
wouldn't care to attempt. My former boss in the private sector, making seven
figures now, was a former government union employee. Alberta simple provides
opportunity, whereas the rest of Canada would rather lower everyone to the
'common' standard. Since when should governments make and provide all
decisions for us from womb to tomb. I wish more provinces could learn from
the success of Alberta.
Post by News
Post by Anonymous
Post by Chris M Tyler
Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political philosophy
I
Post by Anonymous
expected
Post by Chris M Tyler
something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory supporting
Albertan.
Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack it
here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us
"Tories"
Post by Anonymous
out of it.
Not to worry, you know you've won when you're opponent has nothing but dirt
to throw.
santa
2003-09-11 20:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What a crock oh shit! Next you'll be telling the world the streets are
paved with gold and here the pictures of Calgary show horse turds. I can
see people leaving Sask, even Yukon is preferable. You obviously know
bugger all about the impact of unions but that's your loss.
Socialism crippling our nation? You are just parroting something you read.
You have more now than your parents your parents had more than theirs.
People of have been bitching about the world falling apart since Cicero
stood on the steps of the Senate or before. Even Sask has phones now and
paved roads(to nowhere).
If things are so good in AB how come you haven't left? I'll bet your putting
in your time for a nice pension that's waiting for you when you do your 35
years, something Unions fought for. Be a man move to Texas where you can
die on the street but you'll be free of socialism or so they say.

claus

"Ryan Dorosh" <***@usask.ca> wrote in message news:bjq70p$q01$***@tribune.usask.ca...
: What's the beef with Alberta? It's where all my friends now live, and they
: have more opportunity than what they can have in any other province. Not
to
: mention their salary is quite a bit higher. NOT a single one of them would
: move home. If it's so horrible why does it lead Canada for growth, and why
: do people leave in droves to move there? All these negative people sound
so
: full of envy b/c maybe the private sector growth is outpacing the
: labour/union sector growth. So what. I'm unionized. What does it do for
me?
: Not much in the end. I've worked many years in the private sector and they
: didn't send chain me to a desk. The treatment was the same as my union job
: now. Even the wage and benefits. Both are great in my opinion and each has
: it's pros and cons.
:
: It's this attitude of socialism that is crippling our nation:
:
: > >2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
: > >disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
: > >being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
: > >actually do the work.
:
: The business executives I know worked their balls off to get where they
are.
: They didn't get the job from thin air. Years upon years of schooling and
: long hours of work afterwards got them to where they are. Some have more
: years in school in gruelling majors that most, 99%, of the population
: wouldn't care to attempt. My former boss in the private sector, making
seven
: figures now, was a former government union employee. Alberta simple
provides
: opportunity, whereas the rest of Canada would rather lower everyone to the
: 'common' standard. Since when should governments make and provide all
: decisions for us from womb to tomb. I wish more provinces could learn from
: the success of Alberta.
:
:
: "Reason" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:NfR7b.405$***@pd7tw2no...
: >
: > "News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:%AK7b.13701$***@pd7tw3no...
: > > > Wow, for some one that likes to babble on about his political
: philosophy
: > I
: > > expected
: > > > something a little more intelligent. You're a typical Tory
supporting
: > > Albertan.
: > >
: > > Man are you dense. Not all Tories are morons. If you can't hack
it
: > > here in Alberta you have two choices. Stay or Leave. But leave us
: > "Tories"
: > > out of it.
: > >
: > >
: > Not to worry, you know you've won when you're opponent has nothing but
: dirt
: > to throw.
: >
: >
:
:
News
2003-09-11 21:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by santa
What a crock oh shit! Next you'll be telling the world the streets are
paved with gold and here the pictures of Calgary show horse turds. I can
see people leaving Sask, even Yukon is preferable. You obviously know
bugger all about the impact of unions but that's your loss.
I can speak much more authoritatively on the subject if you wish.
Unions (In my experience) do far more long-term damage than good.
Post by santa
Socialism crippling our nation? You are just parroting something you read.
You have more now than your parents your parents had more than theirs.
And I'd have even more if I didn't have to pay for everyone else's
problems. While social responsibility is an important thing, the citizens
of Canada allow far too many people to sponge far too much money out of the
system. Something interesting to ponder is that I will be retired by age
40, no questions asked. However by decreasing my taxation rate by 50%
(Which I may add I feel would be much more fair) I could shave almost 10
years off of that. And I don't make 6 figures. I save my money by living
frugally.
Post by santa
People of have been bitching about the world falling apart since Cicero
stood on the steps of the Senate or before. Even Sask has phones now and
paved roads(to nowhere).
If things are so good in AB how come you haven't left? I'll bet your putting
in your time for a nice pension that's waiting for you when you do your 35
years, something Unions fought for. Be a man move to Texas where you can
die on the street but you'll be free of socialism or so they say.
Well I've worked for 3 companies in my lifetime, all with pension plans,
none with unions. (Although for the blue collar workers there have been
unions) To say that we have pensions *because* of the Unions is pure
nonsense.
santa
2003-09-12 12:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k368b.2696$***@pd7tw1no...
:
: "santa" <***@southpole.com> wrote in message
: news:Ck58b.5616$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
: > What a crock oh shit! Next you'll be telling the world the streets are
: > paved with gold and here the pictures of Calgary show horse turds. I
can
: > see people leaving Sask, even Yukon is preferable. You obviously know
: > bugger all about the impact of unions but that's your loss.
:
: I can speak much more authoritatively on the subject if you wish.
: Unions (In my experience) do far more long-term damage than good.
:
: > Socialism crippling our nation? You are just parroting something you
read.
: > You have more now than your parents your parents had more than theirs.
:
: And I'd have even more if I didn't have to pay for everyone else's
: problems. While social responsibility is an important thing, the citizens
: of Canada allow far too many people to sponge far too much money out of
the
: system. Something interesting to ponder is that I will be retired by age
: 40, no questions asked. However by decreasing my taxation rate by 50%
: (Which I may add I feel would be much more fair) I could shave almost 10
: years off of that. And I don't make 6 figures. I save my money by living
: frugally.
:
: > People of have been bitching about the world falling apart since Cicero
: > stood on the steps of the Senate or before. Even Sask has phones now
and
: > paved roads(to nowhere).
: > If things are so good in AB how come you haven't left? I'll bet your
: putting
: > in your time for a nice pension that's waiting for you when you do your
35
: > years, something Unions fought for. Be a man move to Texas where you
can
: > die on the street but you'll be free of socialism or so they say.
:
: Well I've worked for 3 companies in my lifetime, all with pension
plans,
: none with unions. (Although for the blue collar workers there have been
: unions) To say that we have pensions *because* of the Unions is pure
: nonsense.
:
:

"To say that we have pensions *because* of the Unions" is not what I said.
Do you know where pensions originated? The bright guy that thought them up
was I believe Otto von Bismarck who set them up to get the peasants to work
that much harder now and pay a tax that was not a tax voluntarily for
something in the future an economic religion if you like.. The age of 65 was
chosen as pay day because most people never lived to that age at that time.
Cite some examples of where unions have done more harm than good? That is a
very interpretive statement. It depends on which side of the argument you
are on. Do you really think that there would be a 35 or 40 hour workweek,
health and safety rules, vacations, pensions, child labour laws, minimum
wage laws without unions.

If you can retire by age 40 you must be really living frugally as you put
it. I'll bet your lined up at the food bank even though you can afford
apparently to buy your own groceries. Do you walk on the roads or
sidewalks, drink the water or walk down the paths cleared in the snow by
someone else's money. I'll bet you do. Do you drive a car? Did you
personally pay for all the road you use, I doubt it. Your arguments are
fatuous. When you retire at 40 will you be using the public facilities paid
for by others or will you just sit in your hovel and count your money
glowing in the knowledge that you are saving taxes. I'll be you'll never
enjoy your money you'll be too busy worrying about tomorrow, which never
comes.

You have a nice day,

claus
News
2003-09-12 16:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by santa
"To say that we have pensions *because* of the Unions" is not what I said.
Do you know where pensions originated? The bright guy that thought them up
was I believe Otto von Bismarck who set them up to get the peasants to work
that much harder now and pay a tax that was not a tax voluntarily for
something in the future an economic religion if you like.. The age of 65 was
chosen as pay day because most people never lived to that age at that time.
Cite some examples of where unions have done more harm than good? That is a
very interpretive statement. It depends on which side of the argument you
are on. Do you really think that there would be a 35 or 40 hour workweek,
health and safety rules, vacations, pensions, child labour laws, minimum
wage laws without unions.
Yes I do. I truly honestly do. I think that in the beginning Unions
played a significant role in speeding up the processes, and getting things
done. But now what's left for Unions? We have pensions. We have fair
pay. We have safe working conditions. While Unions still have their place
as a watchdog perhaps, the economic world would not fall apart without them.
Post by santa
If you can retire by age 40 you must be really living frugally as you put
it.
Yup. I spend a little under half of what I earn.

I'll bet your lined up at the food bank even though you can afford
Post by santa
apparently to buy your own groceries.
Never been to a food bank. I would go if I was completely broke and
needed it, but people who sponge off society are pathetic.

Do you walk on the roads or
Post by santa
sidewalks, drink the water or walk down the paths cleared in the snow by
someone else's money. I'll bet you do.
You're right, I do. I use all kinds of infrastructure. I also pay my
taxes - which gives me the right to use those things.

Do you drive a car? Did you
Post by santa
personally pay for all the road you use, I doubt it.
Not the total cost, however I pay a portion of them. I also for a
portion for the roads other people use. Again, I pay my taxes.

Your arguments are
Post by santa
fatuous.
Actually my arguments are spot-on. Because I also pay for many other
things. I pay for a billion dollar gun registry. I pay for welfare. I pay
for CPP. I pay for hospitals. I pay for many things which I have never
used, and many of which I likely never will. I don't have a problem paying
taxes - in fact I rather enjoy knowing that I am paying my share. What I
have a problem with a over-inflated social services that create dependancies
rather than strong workers and happy people. To see upwards of 50% of my
income taken away via taxation (Up front and hidden) and user fees is
ridiculous. And *that* is what I have a problem with. The Gun Registry is
the perfect example. We've paid $1 Billion dollars (And rising) into a
program that most people don't want, and that has virtually no effect on
reducing crime. $1 Billion dollars could buy us all a lot of roads and
hospitals. Or even (gasp!) more police to actually have an impact on crime.

When you retire at 40 will you be using the public facilities paid
Post by santa
for by others or will you just sit in your hovel and count your money
glowing in the knowledge that you are saving taxes. I'll be you'll never
enjoy your money you'll be too busy worrying about tomorrow, which never
comes.
I can tell your estate planning isn't quite as strong as it could be.
The whole reason to plan now is so that you don't have to worry later.
Believe me, I will retire with more money than I'll need. Want to know a
couple of reasons why it's so easy? First of all - I don't want kids. Not
having children will put upwards of $200,000 - $300,000 into the average
persons wallett. (Although the financial savings is hardly the main reason
I don't want children) The other reason is that I've done what seems to be
unthinkable to most - I've taken responsibility for myself. I realized that
just because I get $1000 doesn't mean I have to spend it. I have a decent
car, satellite dish, high-speed internet......all the trappings of a
"Quality" life. I take a nice vacation every year and don't fret over
spending pennies and nickels. I have a focus on the nig picture. *ANYONE*
who takes true responsibility for themselves and earns an average paycheck
can (In my opinion anyways) retire within 20 years. It all has to do with
how you're willing to exist now (I don't need a $12,000 stereo system, a
$1000 one suits me fine) and what you want when you retire.
Post by santa
You have a nice day,
Thank You! I actually plan on having a lot of nice days.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 17:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<sarcasm>

Thanks News, for that inspiring testimonial. You are
certainly a model citizen. I'll ask that they erect a
statue of you in the town square.

Now that you have a good education, job, security and a
charmed life, all obtained rather easily owing to what was
once a good public education system and a tax system that
was far fairer to families than it is now, it only stands to
reason that you should only pay now for what you use.

After all, user fees are the fairest form of taxation,
right? And children - you have 'em - you pay for 'em.

We all need to make responsible decisions. After all you
did, and the opportunities available to you are available to
all, right?

</sarcasm>
News
2003-09-12 19:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
<sarcasm>
Thanks News, for that inspiring testimonial. You are
certainly a model citizen. I'll ask that they erect a
statue of you in the town square.
Sarcasm noted.....and also very well done.
Post by Diogenes
Now that you have a good education, job, security and a
charmed life, all obtained rather easily owing to what was
once a good public education system and a tax system that
was far fairer to families than it is now, it only stands to
reason that you should only pay now for what you use.
Well growing up in Rural Alberta I wouldn't exactly say I had the
greatest of educations. But certainly I felt it was decent. People
complain about class sizes of 30....well I had between 35 and 40 virtually
every year. I got a good education because I supplemented it with a lot of
extra reading and writing, something I enjoyed when I was younger. I have a
good job now because I work hard and continue to improve my skills. I
started as an Electrician's slave and a maintenence man
downtown....basically your typical everyday jobs. When I saw an opportunity
to move onto something else I took it. And have done the same thing a
couple of other times. None of it was "Easy" and I for certain do not owe
anyone anything. I'm thankful to have had a decent education and to live in
a secure country, but again, I don't have anyone to thank other than myself.
(Family and Friends of course!) I put in the effort and deserve to reap the
rewards.
Post by Diogenes
After all, user fees are the fairest form of taxation,
right? And children - you have 'em - you pay for 'em.
Not at all. As I've said many times in the past, the government should
fund things like Basic Civil Protection, Infrastructure, Health Care and
Education. That's about it. Things like social assitance, pension plans
and economic programs (Like subsidies) should not be the government's
concern. Those things can be handled via independant planning and/or
insurance.
Post by Diogenes
We all need to make responsible decisions. After all you
did, and the opportunities available to you are available to
all, right?
Actually they are. I've *never* used a government grant or social
program. I've only ever had the things that everyone gets. Education,
Infrastructure and Health Care. Although I've never personally spent time
in a hospital, I do visit the doctor/dentist twice a year so it all comes
out in the wash I suppose.

The only thing I really have a problem against is having people tell me
I should feel guilty for having succeeded in life. While there were people
along the way who gave me guidance, I've worked hard for everything I have
and everything I'll enjoy in the future. The people who tend to tell me I
should feel guilty for my success are generally the ones who aren't willing
to make the effort to reap the benefits.
Determinator
2003-09-13 04:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Actually they are. I've *never* used a government grant or social
program. I've only ever had the things that everyone gets. Education,
Infrastructure and Health Care. Although I've never personally spent time
in a hospital, I do visit the doctor/dentist twice a year so it all comes
out in the wash I suppose.
you might want to clarify that point... you might not have
"dierectly taken a government grant" but you may have benefitted
from a government grant..

ever use transit?
Calgary gets about $8.00 per capita to fund transit
(unfortunately it cost more than that)

ever use a new overpass?
well that came from a provincial grant
Post by News
The only thing I really have a problem against is having people tell me
I should feel guilty for having succeeded in life. While there were people
along the way who gave me guidance, I've worked hard for everything I have
and everything I'll enjoy in the future. The people who tend to tell me I
should feel guilty for my success are generally the ones who aren't willing
to make the effort to reap the benefits.
in a given population (say 150 people)
do the majority always suceed?
News
2003-09-12 19:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If a person can retire early because they have worked hard and
sacrificed for it then all the more power to him. And those
opportunities are available to everyone, not just him. Some choose not
to get the education, not to work hard, and then vote for politicians
who raise taxes to put up fountains in places like Shawinigan. Others
utilize their education, work hard, and thrive in spite of fountain
raising politicians. To those people opportunities come to them.
Uzi, thanks. It's nice to see that some people still believe in "You
reap what you sow". Hard work, dedication and self-sacrifice (All in the
name of long-term gains) are qualities that I think are fast becoming harder
and harder to find. Worse yet, they are the same qualities that made Canada
as wonderful as it is - and the lack of those qualities are why I fear for
the future of our country.
Maybe that education should have included how make and live within a
budget. If you don't have the extra cash to raise a kid then maybe you
should: a) get a better job, b) get more education to get a better
job, c) work harder to get a better job, or d) not have kids.
If you want me to pay for them then I had better of been there to
enjoy the benefits of when they were conceived.
We had a class in High School that was supposed to teach us how to make
a life of our own. Career and Life Management (CALM) as I recall. I
actually learned a few things from the classes that I still use today. As
far as I'm concerned, we *all* have the chance to retire well, even early.
But the $2200 you spend on the new HDTV could be worth $40,000 with 15 or 20
years worth of compounding interest. The big thing is we all want it "now".
I wanted it "now" so much that before I was 20 I was up to my nose in debt.
It took a fundamental change in the way I viewed needs/wants, but I got
things figured out and back on track. I do have a new TV, but I spent $700
on it rather than a couple thousand for the super high end one. The way I
see it, I can buy 2 more quality TVs in my lifetime for the cost of one
super-fancy one now.
User fees only apply to those who use a service. I don't expect you to
pay for the things I do, why do you expect me to pay for those you do?
Really, why are you so bitter about a guy who has a plan to retire at
age 40 even though he isn't rich. Do you figure he should work another
20 years in order to support what you consider important? He still has
to pay property taxes, gst, etc. He still has to pay income taxes on
any RRSP's he withdraws. He still has to pay taxes on any investment
income. Do you think he isn't paying his fair share of things?
And I'll have prepared myself to live at the same standard of living I
have now in terms of cash flow etc. (God Bless compound interest!) And to
be honest, I may or may not move to a different country when I retire. The
thought of Chile or Belize really appeals to me - no more Canadian winters!
And seriously, I'll have worked (Full Time) for 23 years by the time I
retire. I think by then I'll have paid enough into the system (And not used
it) to not feel so guilty about having earned early retirement.
Diogenes
2003-09-13 16:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
News,
such great rational, "the $2200 you spend on the new HDTV could be worth
$40,000 with 15 or 20
years worth of compounding interest." is a possibly true statement.
However it ignores two things first off how much will $40,000 be worth in 15
to 290 years i.e.. what is the constant dollar value of your money and
secondly what is the opportunity cost for foregoing something today for
something tomorrow. You really are naive if you think it gets better as you
grow older . Ideally everyone would be born rich and die broke, only men
and women over 55 would be allowed to fight in wars or do really dangerous
jobs and all politicians would have to be under 25 so that they have all the
answers before they grow up and lose them.
Enjoy Chile I understand the revolutions are just a ball.
Viva Pinochete
claus.
LOL - Santa at his finest!
Uzi
2003-09-13 17:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
News,
such great rational, "the $2200 you spend on the new HDTV could be worth
$40,000 with 15 or 20
years worth of compounding interest." is a possibly true statement.
However it ignores two things first off how much will $40,000 be worth in 15
to 290 years i.e.. what is the constant dollar value of your money and
secondly what is the opportunity cost for foregoing something today for
something tomorrow.
Yes, but you seem to think that the opportunity lost is sitting in
front of a new HDTV. If he gets the same thing (in his mind) for far
less than $2200 then he has satisfied his want and saved money that
could be used for the future, or for something else that he places
more value on.
You really are naive if you think it gets better as you
grow older . Ideally everyone would be born rich and die broke,
Yet, most aren't. If he wants to eat more than cat food when he
retires he will have to sacrifice some of the things he wants now so
that he doesn't go broke when he is 80 maybe ten years before his time
to kick off. What is the earning potential of an 80 year old who has
been out of the workforce for 20+ years? Probably not much. You could
rely on the State to take care of you. Good luck. At least he is
trying even if you think he is not being realistic.
santa
2003-09-13 22:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Uzi" <st-***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:01:58 -0400, "santa" <***@southpole.com>
: wrote:
:
: >News,
: >such great rational, "the $2200 you spend on the new HDTV could be worth
: >$40,000 with 15 or 20
: > years worth of compounding interest." is a possibly true statement.
: >However it ignores two things first off how much will $40,000 be worth in
15
: >to 290 years i.e.. what is the constant dollar value of your money and
: >secondly what is the opportunity cost for foregoing something today for
: >something tomorrow.
:
: Yes, but you seem to think that the opportunity lost is sitting in
: front of a new HDTV. If he gets the same thing (in his mind) for far
: less than $2200 then he has satisfied his want and saved money that
: could be used for the future, or for something else that he places
: more value on.
:
: > You really are naive if you think it gets better as you
: >grow older . Ideally everyone would be born rich and die broke,
:
: Yet, most aren't. If he wants to eat more than cat food when he
: retires he will have to sacrifice some of the things he wants now so
: that he doesn't go broke when he is 80 maybe ten years before his time
: to kick off. What is the earning potential of an 80 year old who has
: been out of the workforce for 20+ years? Probably not much. You could
: rely on the State to take care of you. Good luck. At least he is
: trying even if you think he is not being realistic.

Uzi,
I'll bet my life that I'm a hell of a lot closer to 80 than you are. At the
rate I'm going dropping dead on my 80th birthday is a target to shoot for
and look forward too. It doesn't get better as you grow older. The miles
add up even if you behave reasonably.
I've been looking for one of two things one is to come back in three days
like one dude claimed and as a less palatable but reasonable substitute some
way to take it with me. So far on the come-back run there's only one report
not very verifiable and I've watched real stars like J. Edgar Hoover, the
previous Pope, John Lennon and even Elvis and none have come back though
there are reports of Elvis being sighted in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

You have a nice looooooong day

claus
santa
2003-09-14 12:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Uzi" <st-***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 18:00:40 -0400, "santa" <***@southpole.com>
: wrote:
:
: >Uzi,
: >I'll bet my life that I'm a hell of a lot closer to 80 than you are. At
the
: >rate I'm going dropping dead on my 80th birthday is a target to shoot for
: >and look forward too. It doesn't get better as you grow older. The
miles
: >add up even if you behave reasonably.
:
: Well, I'm half way there and I can tell you for me it has gotten
: better, at least up till now. Sex is better, career is better, I know
: where I'm going and don't regret where I've been.
: You shoot for 80 if you like. My grandparents are still going strong
: at 80, my great grandmother died at 102. So, I have to plan for living
: a loooong time.

Sex is better? you passed your peak at 19 assuming you're male. I've been
both places and 19 is better. career may be better but your in the
replacement zone where some young stud who knows even more than you will
work for a lot less is just sitting out there waiting.
You keep thinking positively though its a lot better when you believe the
cup is half full.

claus
News
2003-09-15 15:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uzi
Yes, but you seem to think that the opportunity lost is sitting in
front of a new HDTV. If he gets the same thing (in his mind) for far
less than $2200 then he has satisfied his want and saved money that
could be used for the future, or for something else that he places
more value on.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head Uzi.
Post by Uzi
You really are naive if you think it gets better as you
grow older . Ideally everyone would be born rich and die broke,
Yet, most aren't. If he wants to eat more than cat food when he
retires he will have to sacrifice some of the things he wants now so
that he doesn't go broke when he is 80 maybe ten years before his time
to kick off. What is the earning potential of an 80 year old who has
been out of the workforce for 20+ years? Probably not much. You could
rely on the State to take care of you. Good luck. At least he is
trying even if you think he is not being realistic.
It's still always good practice to overplan than under-prepare I think.
Especially considering I'm not talking about a vacation - I'm talking about
my retirement!

Dan Parker
2003-09-14 01:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
And I'll have prepared myself to live at the same standard of living I
have now in terms of cash flow etc. (God Bless compound interest!)
I agree with most of your post, but the bible repeatedly condemns
that which compound interest represents, and with good reason.
This is not to say that 20 years of work, and moderate consumption
should not result in a good revenue stream for retirement. However,
there are better ways of doing this than compound interest, which
increases the money supply without any relationship to actual wealth
creation capabilities. Along with inflation, this device has also been
hijacked
by unscrupulous people to create a world-wide company store scam,
with terrible results for many people in many countries.

http://www.misterc.ca/banks_&_usury.htm

Regards
Dan Parker
santa
2003-09-14 12:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Dan Parker" <***@telus.net> wrote in message news:7JP8b.99302$***@news1.telusplanet.net...
: "News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:tep8b.1080$***@pd7tw1no...
:
: >
: > And I'll have prepared myself to live at the same standard of living
I
: > have now in terms of cash flow etc. (God Bless compound interest!)
:
: I agree with most of your post, but the bible repeatedly condemns
: that which compound interest represents, and with good reason.
: This is not to say that 20 years of work, and moderate consumption
: should not result in a good revenue stream for retirement. However,
: there are better ways of doing this than compound interest, which
: increases the money supply without any relationship to actual wealth
: creation capabilities. Along with inflation, this device has also been
: hijacked
: by unscrupulous people to create a world-wide company store scam,
: with terrible results for many people in many countries.
:
: http://www.misterc.ca/banks_&_usury.htm
:
: Regards
: Dan Parker
:
:
:
Dan, tell us what's better than compound interest?
claus
santa
2003-09-12 19:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Diogenes" <***@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Yxn8b.358$***@pd7tw2no...
: <sarcasm>
:
: Thanks News, for that inspiring testimonial. You are
: certainly a model citizen. I'll ask that they erect a
: statue of you in the town square.
:
: Now that you have a good education, job, security and a
: charmed life, all obtained rather easily owing to what was
: once a good public education system and a tax system that
: was far fairer to families than it is now, it only stands to
: reason that you should only pay now for what you use.
:
: After all, user fees are the fairest form of taxation,
: right? And children - you have 'em - you pay for 'em.
:
: We all need to make responsible decisions. After all you
: did, and the opportunities available to you are available to
: all, right?
:
: </sarcasm>
:

DIo,
no, no you have mis-interpreted; news has done it all himself and is going
to live out his life responsibly taking nothing for which he hasn't worked.
It wild be unfair if a statue were erected unless he paid for it himself.
I wonder if he buys insurance in any form? Does he use the health care
system or any public facilities? I hope not that would by hypocritical.
I'll bet he's practicing as a slum landlord screwing exorbitant rents out of
the poorer members of our community. I'll bet he saves the sweat of his
ass. I knew a whole family that was like that, they got rich rent racking
and all died miserably and alone and the one son who left the family and had
little to do with them got it all.

claus
News
2003-09-12 20:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by santa
DIo,
no, no you have mis-interpreted; news has done it all himself and is going
to live out his life responsibly taking nothing for which he hasn't worked.
It wild be unfair if a statue were erected unless he paid for it himself.
I wonder if he buys insurance in any form? Does he use the health care
system or any public facilities? I hope not that would by hypocritical.
I'll bet he's practicing as a slum landlord screwing exorbitant rents out of
the poorer members of our community. I'll bet he saves the sweat of his
ass. I knew a whole family that was like that, they got rich rent racking
and all died miserably and alone and the one son who left the family and had
little to do with them got it all.
I'm sorry your (obvious) jealousy and insecurities has you so riled up
about me taking responsibility for my life and future. Quite frankly I'm
not even entirely sure why you have such a problem with me succeeding in
life. (That's an invitation to list your beefs if you really want to) All
I've ever done is worked hard and saved my money, but to you that makes me
some sort of scumbag I guess. It's unfortunate that when I retire my taxes
(Which I'll still have to pay) will be supporting people like you that
refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
santa
2003-09-13 13:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:wpq8b.1472$***@pd7tw1no...
: > DIo,
: > no, no you have mis-interpreted; news has done it all himself and is
: going
: > to live out his life responsibly taking nothing for which he hasn't
: worked.
: > It wild be unfair if a statue were erected unless he paid for it
himself.
: > I wonder if he buys insurance in any form? Does he use the health care
: > system or any public facilities? I hope not that would by hypocritical.
: > I'll bet he's practicing as a slum landlord screwing exorbitant rents
out
: of
: > the poorer members of our community. I'll bet he saves the sweat of his
: > ass. I knew a whole family that was like that, they got rich rent
racking
: > and all died miserably and alone and the one son who left the family and
: had
: > little to do with them got it all.
:
: I'm sorry your (obvious) jealousy and insecurities has you so riled up
: about me taking responsibility for my life and future. Quite frankly I'm
: not even entirely sure why you have such a problem with me succeeding in
: life. (That's an invitation to list your beefs if you really want to)
All
: I've ever done is worked hard and saved my money, but to you that makes me
: some sort of scumbag I guess. It's unfortunate that when I retire my
taxes
: (Which I'll still have to pay) will be supporting people like you that
: refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
:
:

News,
Aren't we getting a little personal? If you really want to play that game
with me I'll understand and respond accordingly. How do you know I refuse
to take responsibility for myself. Not only do I take responsibility for
myself I am willing and do take some responsibility for others around me,
perfect strangers in some cases. I'm not jealous or insecure, more
conceited, arrogant and verbally vicious on occasion. Unlike you I have a
pretty good idea exactly what my fate will be and a fair approximation as to
when it will pass.

I'm glad you have/are succeeding/succeeded (in your mind) . I don't think
you're a scumbag I just think your incredibly naive and full of the
intemperate wisdom of youth. I've met you kind before and will no doubt
meet them again. You are proud that you have all the answers and have done
everything right. I wish you every success; may you live to the age you
desire and go west while in the arms of a loving partner doing the things
you like best.

claus
santa
2003-09-15 11:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Chris M Tyler" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 09:18:46 -0400, "santa" <***@southpole.com> wrote:
:
: >
: > "News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:wpq8b.1472$***@pd7tw1no...
: > : > DIo,
: > : > no, no you have mis-interpreted; news has done it all himself and
is
: > : going
: > : > to live out his life responsibly taking nothing for which he
hasn't
: > : worked.
: > : > It wild be unfair if a statue were erected unless he paid for it
: > himself.
: > : > I wonder if he buys insurance in any form? Does he use the health
care
: > : > system or any public facilities? I hope not that would by
hypocritical.
: > : > I'll bet he's practicing as a slum landlord screwing exorbitant
rents
: > out
: > : of
: > : > the poorer members of our community. I'll bet he saves the sweat
of his
: > : > ass. I knew a whole family that was like that, they got rich rent
: > racking
: > : > and all died miserably and alone and the one son who left the
family and
: > : had
: > : > little to do with them got it all.
: > :
: > : I'm sorry your (obvious) jealousy and insecurities has you so
riled up
: > : about me taking responsibility for my life and future. Quite
frankly I'm
: > : not even entirely sure why you have such a problem with me
succeeding in
: > : life. (That's an invitation to list your beefs if you really want
to)
: > All
: > : I've ever done is worked hard and saved my money, but to you that
makes me
: > : some sort of scumbag I guess. It's unfortunate that when I retire
my
: > taxes
: > : (Which I'll still have to pay) will be supporting people like you
that
: > : refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
: > :
: > :
: >
: > News,
: > Aren't we getting a little personal? If you really want to play that
game
: > with me I'll understand and respond accordingly. How do you know I
refuse
: > to take responsibility for myself. Not only do I take responsibility
for
: > myself I am willing and do take some responsibility for others around
me,
: > perfect strangers in some cases. I'm not jealous or insecure, more
: > conceited, arrogant and verbally vicious on occasion. Unlike you I
have a
: > pretty good idea exactly what my fate will be and a fair approximation
as to
: > when it will pass.
: >
: > I'm glad you have/are succeeding/succeeded (in your mind) . I don't
think
: > you're a scumbag I just think your incredibly naive and full of the
: > intemperate wisdom of youth. I've met you kind before and will no
doubt
: > meet them again. You are proud that you have all the answers and have
done
: > everything right. I wish you every success; may you live to the age
you
: > desire and go west while in the arms of a loving partner doing the
things
: > you like best.
: >
: > claus
:
: Claus,
:
: Wisdom is in short supply in this newsgroup. Thank you for yours. It's
a nice change
: from the typical naivety so common here.
:

Why Chris thank you for those kind words.

claus
News
2003-09-12 20:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
: Another intellectual giant heard from. Some people are born stupid,
never
get educated, have what brains they have beaten out of them by misfortune.
There are thousands of so called working poor. Where did all the buggy
whip
makers go. Where are all the cape Breton miners, the Newfoundland
fishermen, the assembly line workers whose job went to Mexico and are now
moving to Thailand. Does "news" have the $1000 a day it costs to operate
a
hospital bed? How long will he be sick before he's broke? Do you guys
have
your own police force to protect you from the muggers? If you don't you
should have sign on you saying "not protected mug at your leisure". You
guys don't have a clue do you.
Allow me to post a clipping from a recent post of mine.

"Not at all. As I've said many times in the past, the government should
fund things like Basic Civil Protection, Infrastructure, Health Care and
Education. That's about it. Things like social assitance, pension plans
and economic programs (Like subsidies) should not be the government's
concern. Those things can be handled via independant planning and/or
insurance."

And I stand by those comments. If someone loses their job I am happy to
"Spot Them" for a short time while they find another job. That is social
responsibility. But I'm not paying my taxes so that people can spend months
and months (In some cases years) sitting on government programs. That is
just being fair. Are you one of those people that visits a relative for 1
week and stays for 3 months? As for the $1000/day hosptial bed......I've
never had to use it (Knock on wood) but if I had too, I am prepared for it
with insurance and savings. And hey, I've paid my taxes - I am as entitled
to Health Care as anyone else.
But don't worry if I come across you and you don't have the money I'll
throw
you out to die in the street after all you want to pay your way don't you?
You've completely missed the point. The point is that I do have the
money/etc to take care of myself. I have the good fortune of being
(reasonably) sure that I will never be a significant bother to the system.
I will never have to burden you with such a decision.
You have another great fantasy day
Thank You.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 20:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If a person can retire early because they have worked hard and
sacrificed for it then all the more power to him. And those
opportunities are available to everyone, not just him. Some choose not
to get the education, not to work hard, and then vote for politicians
who raise taxes to put up fountains in places like Shawinigan. Others
utilize their education, work hard, and thrive in spite of fountain
raising politicians. To those people opportunities come to them.
Maybe that education should have included how make and live within a
budget. If you don't have the extra cash to raise a kid then maybe you
should: a) get a better job, b) get more education to get a better
job, c) work harder to get a better job, or d) not have kids.
If you want me to pay for them then I had better of been there to
enjoy the benefits of when they were conceived.
User fees only apply to those who use a service. I don't expect you to
pay for the things I do, why do you expect me to pay for those you do?
Really, why are you so bitter about a guy who has a plan to retire at
age 40 even though he isn't rich. Do you figure he should work another
20 years in order to support what you consider important? He still has
to pay property taxes, gst, etc. He still has to pay income taxes on
any RRSP's he withdraws. He still has to pay taxes on any investment
income. Do you think he isn't paying his fair share of things?
I'm not bitter at all. More power to him, and you, if you
choose to model your life after his.

We all have a tendency to view the life of others based on
our own expectations and experiences, and that is highly
subjective.

The tone of the post was a bit preachy. When you hold
yourself up as a model of success based on a very narrow
view of the world, expect to be challenged.

No offense intended, just something to make you think.

-Diogenes
News
2003-09-12 21:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Diogenes
We all have a tendency to view the life of others based on
our own expectations and experiences, and that is highly
subjective.
I am *very* happy to hear you say that. That's exactly the key to the
whole thing, in my mind anyhow. Just because I want to drive a Ferrari
doesn't make you wrong for wanting one.
Post by Diogenes
The tone of the post was a bit preachy. When you hold
yourself up as a model of success based on a very narrow
view of the world, expect to be challenged.
I wouldn't expect anything different on Usenet! And I did (in one post)
mention that I know I was sounding quite "Up on the Soapbox". I'm not
trying to change the world or anything to that effect. I'm quite content
letting people live their lives. I just don't want to be made to feel
guilty about what I've done, and those who try (Not saying you specifically
or anything) should expect to be challenged. <grin>
Post by Diogenes
No offense intended, just something to make you think.
Glad you did. A conversation with only one person is kind of pointless!
Uzi
2003-09-12 21:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
: Another intellectual giant heard from. Some people are born stupid, never
get educated, have what brains they have beaten out of them by misfortune.
There are thousands of so called working poor. Where did all the buggy whip
makers go. Where are all the cape Breton miners, the Newfoundland
fishermen, the assembly line workers whose job went to Mexico and are now
moving to Thailand. Does "news" have the $1000 a day it costs to operate a
hospital bed? How long will he be sick before he's broke? Do you guys have
your own police force to protect you from the muggers? If you don't you
should have sign on you saying "not protected mug at your leisure". You
guys don't have a clue do you.
But don't worry if I come across you and you don't have the money I'll throw
you out to die in the street after all you want to pay your way don't you?
You have another great fantasy day
claus
Holy f***!

If you have to work to 65 to retire then so be it. If you can do it at
40 then good for you. I plan on doing it around 50. That is the plan.
Things can change. At which point I'd have to adapt. I don't expect
you to cry if things go south for me, or support me. But again, in
case you didn't actually read what I wrote (which appears to be the
case), whether you retire at 40, or 65, you still pay taxes on money
you earn in your investments, or withdraw from RRSP's. You also
continue to pay property taxes which support the police, fire dept,
etc. Geez, so you aren't contributing to the GDP at the rate you were
before. Maybe one of those buggy whip makers you are concerned about
can retrain and take my place at work. Sheesh, take a pill, will ya?
News
2003-09-12 22:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Uzi
case), whether you retire at 40, or 65, you still pay taxes on money
you earn in your investments, or withdraw from RRSP's. You also
continue to pay property taxes which support the police, fire dept,
etc. Geez, so you aren't contributing to the GDP at the rate you were
before. Maybe one of those buggy whip makers you are concerned about
can retrain and take my place at work. Sheesh, take a pill, will ya?
Don't sweat it. Socialists are inherently afraid of individual success.
Just take comfort knowing that while they're all busy slaving away still,
you can be wandering vineyards in France or golfing in Scotland or sitting
on the beach in Mexico. (Or sitting at home watching TV, whatever turns
your crank!!)
santa
2003-09-13 13:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FGr8b.1638$***@pd7tw2no...
: > case), whether you retire at 40, or 65, you still pay taxes on money
: > you earn in your investments, or withdraw from RRSP's. You also
: > continue to pay property taxes which support the police, fire dept,
: > etc. Geez, so you aren't contributing to the GDP at the rate you were
: > before. Maybe one of those buggy whip makers you are concerned about
: > can retrain and take my place at work. Sheesh, take a pill, will ya?
:
: Don't sweat it. Socialists are inherently afraid of individual
success.
: Just take comfort knowing that while they're all busy slaving away still,
: you can be wandering vineyards in France or golfing in Scotland or sitting
: on the beach in Mexico. (Or sitting at home watching TV, whatever turns
: your crank!!)
:
:
News,
the irony is your talking about it and I've done it so the jokes on you!

claus
santa
2003-09-12 19:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"News" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:QQm8b.150$***@pd7tw1no...
: > "To say that we have pensions *because* of the Unions" is not what I
: said.
: > Do you know where pensions originated? The bright guy that thought them
: up
: > was I believe Otto von Bismarck who set them up to get the peasants to
: work
: > that much harder now and pay a tax that was not a tax voluntarily for
: > something in the future an economic religion if you like.. The age of 65
: was
: > chosen as pay day because most people never lived to that age at that
: time.
: > Cite some examples of where unions have done more harm than good? That
is
: a
: > very interpretive statement. It depends on which side of the argument
you
: > are on. Do you really think that there would be a 35 or 40 hour
workweek,
: > health and safety rules, vacations, pensions, child labour laws, minimum
: > wage laws without unions.
:
: Yes I do. I truly honestly do. I think that in the beginning Unions
: played a significant role in speeding up the processes, and getting things
: done. But now what's left for Unions? We have pensions. We have fair
: pay. We have safe working conditions. While Unions still have their
place
: as a watchdog perhaps, the economic world would not fall apart without
them.
:
: > If you can retire by age 40 you must be really living frugally as you
put
: > it.
:
: Yup. I spend a little under half of what I earn.
:
: I'll bet your lined up at the food bank even though you can afford
: > apparently to buy your own groceries.
:
: Never been to a food bank. I would go if I was completely broke and
: needed it, but people who sponge off society are pathetic.
:
: Do you walk on the roads or
: > sidewalks, drink the water or walk down the paths cleared in the snow by
: > someone else's money. I'll bet you do.
:
: You're right, I do. I use all kinds of infrastructure. I also pay my
: taxes - which gives me the right to use those things.
:
: Do you drive a car? Did you
: > personally pay for all the road you use, I doubt it.
:
: Not the total cost, however I pay a portion of them. I also for a
: portion for the roads other people use. Again, I pay my taxes.
:
: Your arguments are
: > fatuous.
:
: Actually my arguments are spot-on. Because I also pay for many other
: things. I pay for a billion dollar gun registry. I pay for welfare. I
pay
: for CPP. I pay for hospitals. I pay for many things which I have never
: used, and many of which I likely never will. I don't have a problem
paying
: taxes - in fact I rather enjoy knowing that I am paying my share. What I
: have a problem with a over-inflated social services that create
dependancies
: rather than strong workers and happy people. To see upwards of 50% of my
: income taken away via taxation (Up front and hidden) and user fees is
: ridiculous. And *that* is what I have a problem with. The Gun Registry
is
: the perfect example. We've paid $1 Billion dollars (And rising) into a
: program that most people don't want, and that has virtually no effect on
: reducing crime. $1 Billion dollars could buy us all a lot of roads and
: hospitals. Or even (gasp!) more police to actually have an impact on
crime.
:
: When you retire at 40 will you be using the public facilities paid
: > for by others or will you just sit in your hovel and count your money
: > glowing in the knowledge that you are saving taxes. I'll be you'll
never
: > enjoy your money you'll be too busy worrying about tomorrow, which never
: > comes.
:
: I can tell your estate planning isn't quite as strong as it could be.
: The whole reason to plan now is so that you don't have to worry later.
: Believe me, I will retire with more money than I'll need. Want to know a
: couple of reasons why it's so easy? First of all - I don't want kids.
Not
: having children will put upwards of $200,000 - $300,000 into the average
: persons wallett. (Although the financial savings is hardly the main
reason
: I don't want children) The other reason is that I've done what seems to
be
: unthinkable to most - I've taken responsibility for myself. I realized
that
: just because I get $1000 doesn't mean I have to spend it. I have a decent
: car, satellite dish, high-speed internet......all the trappings of a
: "Quality" life. I take a nice vacation every year and don't fret over
: spending pennies and nickels. I have a focus on the nig picture.
*ANYONE*
: who takes true responsibility for themselves and earns an average paycheck
: can (In my opinion anyways) retire within 20 years. It all has to do with
: how you're willing to exist now (I don't need a $12,000 stereo system, a
: $1000 one suits me fine) and what you want when you retire.
:
: > You have a nice day,
:
: Thank You! I actually plan on having a lot of nice days.
:
:
news,
I sincerely hope you do it your way. At heart you're a second best type of
person. You'll always settle for second best. Your talk about financial
planning for the future is all very nice but there is always a zinger. The
future never gets here it is always now. The world is littered with broken
plans. It doesn't matter how you invest or save or how frugal you are a
little bit of bad karma and you're on the welfare roles carrying a bundle of
Enron shares clutched to your chest to keep warm.
Your choice of words suggest a very different mindset, decent car, satellite
dish, high speed internet, these are what define your life? Man it must be
pretty shallow. Do you enjoy a fine wine, an loving partner, a gourmet
meal, a superior brandy, sensuous music, the glory of a tropical sunset?
Somehow I doubt it, you say you exist, rather a pathetic term. You know
what it doesn't get better as you grow older in fact speaking from
experience getting older sucks no matter how much you have.
You may plan to have a lot of nice days but so have a lot of other people
who are now occupying a 6 by 6 by 2 plot of land.

I wish you luck cause you need it. As someone famous once said "shit
happens". However look at it positively with low expectations it's unlikely
you'll be too, too disappointed.

claus
News
2003-09-12 20:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by santa
I sincerely hope you do it your way. At heart you're a second best type of
person. You'll always settle for second best.
That's an interesting way of putting it, and I can't help but agree. I
don't need to have the very best, 2nd best is plenty good for me. The next
car I buy (In the spring) won't be a brand new car. It'll likely be a 2 or
3 year old Lease Back. Good car, lots of life left and 2/3 of the original
price. I'm cool with that.

Your talk about financial
Post by santa
planning for the future is all very nice but there is always a zinger.
The
Post by santa
future never gets here it is always now. The world is littered with broken
plans. It doesn't matter how you invest or save or how frugal you are a
little bit of bad karma and you're on the welfare roles carrying a bundle of
Enron shares clutched to your chest to keep warm.
Tell me about it. At one point it really looked as though I'd be
retiring before 35.....then the Dot.com bubble burst. Fortunately through
diversification and (admittedly) some good luck it didn't set me back. I
actually ended up about where I had expected to be before the Dot.com
growth. And the reason I attribute to it is that I wasn't worried about how
much I could earn in the next 2 or 3 years - I'm in it for the long-haul and
my investments/savings are designed to reflect that. You'll find that most
of the people who lost a ton of money in those final few weeks were ones
that hopped aboard and invested everything for the super-fast return.
That's the exact opposite attitude I've been talking (well, preaching!)
about. It's all about the long-term.
Post by santa
Your choice of words suggest a very different mindset, decent car, satellite
dish, high speed internet, these are what define your life? Man it must be
pretty shallow. Do you enjoy a fine wine, an loving partner, a gourmet
meal, a superior brandy, sensuous music, the glory of a tropical sunset?
Oh no no no. Don't mistake the few items I casually jotted down as a
definition of a quality life! Certainly not. Many of the things you listed
are there as well. Not only do I enjoy a fine meal, I also particularly
enjoy making it! I practically live outdoors during the summer and have a
great social life. Again, the things I wrote were certainly not a
definative list!
Post by santa
Somehow I doubt it, you say you exist, rather a pathetic term. You know
what it doesn't get better as you grow older in fact speaking from
experience getting older sucks no matter how much you have.
Absolutely. And although I don't squeeze every last second out of every
day, I certainly do not sit idly and watch life blow by. Again, it's simple
things. I go on vacation, but rather than a $2500 European Package, I spend
$1500 or $2000 on "Do it youself" trip including Pensions and Hostels. Not
as cushy, but arguably more fun. (I swear I'll never do I Bus Tour again!)
Post by santa
You may plan to have a lot of nice days but so have a lot of other people
who are now occupying a 6 by 6 by 2 plot of land.
And those that live by the seat of their pants always seem to end up
living in squaller when they retire. Either way you take a chance, and I'm
betting that I live to be 40. If I don't, half my estate goes to family and
half to friends. Either way it's a positive outcome.
Post by santa
I wish you luck cause you need it. As someone famous once said "shit
happens". However look at it positively with low expectations it's unlikely
you'll be too, too disappointed.
That's funny, because I certainly don't have low expectations. I expect
(and plan for) a couple of vacations each year, summers on the golf course
and a few minor luxuries along the way. The things that I enjoy. And the
other thing is, when "shit happens" I'll at least be prepared for it, unlike
many in here that haven't got $5 to their name.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 21:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
That's funny, because I certainly don't have low expectations. I expect
(and plan for) a couple of vacations each year, summers on the golf course
and a few minor luxuries along the way. The things that I enjoy. And the
other thing is, when "shit happens" I'll at least be prepared for it, unlike
many in here that haven't got $5 to their name.
Really? How charming! Some people are lucky that way.

But life is full of surprises and I'm sure there will be
more than just your 40th birthday.
Uzi
2003-09-13 17:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You stay a pensions and hostels, how quaint. Try first class It is a lot
lot nicer, take my word for it.
Say, you go to Vegas. Do you stay at the Bellagio, or Circus Circus?
One is a hell of a lot cheaper than the other. As you are only in your
room to sleep why spend the extra money for the Bellagio when you can
go there even if you aren't staying there?
In Europe my only criteria is location and if there is a washroom in
your room. I don't like sharing. You can find good 4 star hotels for
reasonable rates if you look around as I found out in Rome.
Now in Hong Kong I stayed at the Ritz, but at the low internet rate of
$300 a night it's not something I'd like to do for long.
You're working so hard to justify the appearance that you are apparently a
better miser than scrooge. Take my word for it if shit happens you won't be
prepared for it. Money isn't what makes it, it is advocates and/or friends.
Money or frugality doesn't buy those not real ones anyways.
Money and frugality doesn't mean you don't have friends or contacts. I
would think that if you have a reputation for making a dollar last
you'd have a better chance of getting a job if for whatever reason you
need one. It is real easy to spend money recklessly, quite a bit
harder to get the most from your resources.
Diogenes
2003-09-12 21:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by santa
news,
I sincerely hope you do it your way. At heart you're a second best type of
person. You'll always settle for second best. Your talk about financial
planning for the future is all very nice but there is always a zinger. The
future never gets here it is always now. The world is littered with broken
plans. It doesn't matter how you invest or save or how frugal you are a
little bit of bad karma and you're on the welfare roles carrying a bundle of
Enron shares clutched to your chest to keep warm.
Your choice of words suggest a very different mindset, decent car, satellite
dish, high speed internet, these are what define your life? Man it must be
pretty shallow. Do you enjoy a fine wine, an loving partner, a gourmet
meal, a superior brandy, sensuous music, the glory of a tropical sunset?
Somehow I doubt it, you say you exist, rather a pathetic term. You know
what it doesn't get better as you grow older in fact speaking from
experience getting older sucks no matter how much you have.
You may plan to have a lot of nice days but so have a lot of other people
who are now occupying a 6 by 6 by 2 plot of land.
I wish you luck cause you need it. As someone famous once said "shit
happens". However look at it positively with low expectations it's unlikely
you'll be too, too disappointed.
claus
Santa, haven't heard from you in a long time. Your always
good for a laugh. Your wit and wisdom is appreciated.

-Dio
GlennMor <>
2003-09-10 16:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
The truth of course, is that good things come from synergies created by
people working together. Alberta has created a good business climate where
benefits are created by partnerships between employers, employees,
industries and consumers. Human and social needs are well-met in such a
climate, after all, the best social program is a healthy economy.
Bullshit! What little labour law this province has is regularly breached by many Alberta
businesses.
What does this 'labour law' crap have to do with any of it? The matter at hand
is Alberta's prosperity... or do you imagine that prosperity for all stems from
breaches of labour laws?
Determinator
2003-09-11 03:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GlennMor <>
Post by Chris M Tyler
Post by Anonymous
The truth of course, is that good things come from synergies created by
people working together. Alberta has created a good business climate where
benefits are created by partnerships between employers, employees,
industries and consumers. Human and social needs are well-met in such a
climate, after all, the best social program is a healthy economy.
Bullshit! What little labour law this province has is regularly breached by many Alberta
businesses.
What does this 'labour law' crap have to do with any of it? The matter at hand
is Alberta's prosperity... or do you imagine that prosperity for all stems from
breaches of labour laws?
And in all this prosparity ... we raised the daily charge on
folks staying in long-term care institutions...


This month Alberta health is suspending Aids to daily living
funding (ie for repairs) to about 200 people who bought their own
wheelchair or weregiven a wheelchair by a service club.

(for a savings of about $250 per chair per year)
News
2003-09-08 22:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
Having the "Goods" in the ground was a stroke of good fortune. Knowing
how to properly exploit it is another thing entirely. We're a "Have"
province in a "Have Not" country because of hard work, not simply because of
good geography.
Post by Anonymous
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
So you're complaining that those with money (Who invest, spend and drive
the economy) don't deserve to reap the rewards? Those who take the risk
deserves to reap the rewards. Deal with it.
Post by Anonymous
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
And what Anti-Alberta Newsletter did you steal that one from? Do you
even understand what you just wrote?
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich).
That alone tells me that you know *zero* about this province. Klein
(And his supporters) aren't privatizing the entire system. They want to
allow "Extra" facilities to be privately funded for profit. Gee, reducing
lineups for the general public while creating a nice new tax base sure is a
bad idea......

Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
Post by Anonymous
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact.
Good, then you can prove it. I'm waiting.......
Post by Anonymous
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
Hmmm, interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.
Post by Anonymous
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence.
"Alberta literally exports its poor....". Well I haven't exactly seen
the SS Troops putting poor people on trains. Care to actually prove this?
Oh wait, you're full of crap, so you can't possible prove this. In fact, by
looking at actual migration patterns we can CLEARLY see that people are
coming from "Poor" economies like the East Coast and Saskatchewan TO
Alberta. This extreme migration (To a province that actually has jobs in
it) is overburdening OUR social infrastructure.

A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
Post by Anonymous
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
And why should they? When someone moves to Alberta, the province pays
for them. When some moves to Ontario (For example) than Ontario should pay
for them. Pretty logical really.
Post by Anonymous
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
Prove it. I call Bullshit.
Post by Anonymous
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
User fees are definately on the rise. Finally, you managed to say
something true. Although you're missing the KEY point in the whole
arguement. A tax hits EVERYONE. A user fee only hits those who use the
system. System users pay what they would be paying anyways. And those of
us who don't use the services get to keep our money.
Post by Anonymous
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Really? I think for a city that's only about a century old (1894 became
a city) I think we have a fairly impressive culture. It's not all
Orchestras and Sculptures, but for a city of (under) a million, there's a
very good spirit here. Have you actually BEEN to Calgary before?
Mountain Goat
2003-09-09 03:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Anonymous
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
Having the "Goods" in the ground was a stroke of good fortune. Knowing
how to properly exploit it is another thing entirely. We're a "Have"
province in a "Have Not" country because of hard work, not simply because of
good geography.
Post by Anonymous
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
So you're complaining that those with money (Who invest, spend and drive
the economy) don't deserve to reap the rewards? Those who take the risk
deserves to reap the rewards. Deal with it.
Post by Anonymous
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
And what Anti-Alberta Newsletter did you steal that one from? Do you
even understand what you just wrote?
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich).
That alone tells me that you know *zero* about this province. Klein
(And his supporters) aren't privatizing the entire system. They want to
allow "Extra" facilities to be privately funded for profit. Gee, reducing
lineups for the general public while creating a nice new tax base sure is a
bad idea......
Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
Post by Anonymous
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact.
Good, then you can prove it. I'm waiting.......
Post by Anonymous
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
Hmmm, interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.
Post by Anonymous
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence.
"Alberta literally exports its poor....". Well I haven't exactly seen
the SS Troops putting poor people on trains. Care to actually prove this?
Oh wait, you're full of crap, so you can't possible prove this. In fact, by
looking at actual migration patterns we can CLEARLY see that people are
coming from "Poor" economies like the East Coast and Saskatchewan TO
Alberta. This extreme migration (To a province that actually has jobs in
it) is overburdening OUR social infrastructure.
Well most of the people who have come to Alberta from 'have not'
provinces have come seeking jobs. Now sometimes they have come with
unreasonable expectations of the skills needed in our economy. But for
these people what is better, stay where they are for a treadmill of EI
and welfare and occasional work in declining industries, or leave
their families and social support system and try again in a new
location like Alberta? My wife and her cousin are both from Nova
Scotia and have lived and worked productively here since they arrived.

Having said that there is a bit of truth in the previous posters
comments,Alberta is the only province I know of that says 'You can't
have welfare but here's a bus ticket to somewhere else'.
Post by News
A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
Post by Anonymous
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
And why should they? When someone moves to Alberta, the province pays
for them. When some moves to Ontario (For example) than Ontario should pay
for them. Pretty logical really.
Post by Anonymous
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
Prove it. I call Bullshit.
Post by Anonymous
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
User fees are definately on the rise. Finally, you managed to say
something true. Although you're missing the KEY point in the whole
arguement. A tax hits EVERYONE. A user fee only hits those who use the
system. System users pay what they would be paying anyways. And those of
us who don't use the services get to keep our money.
Post by Anonymous
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Really? I think for a city that's only about a century old (1894 became
a city) I think we have a fairly impressive culture. It's not all
Orchestras and Sculptures, but for a city of (under) a million, there's a
very good spirit here. Have you actually BEEN to Calgary before?
Reason
2003-09-09 04:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers.
The only way that could be true, is if the middle and upper classes are
large enough to make up the majority of the electorate... Wait, that's
correct! I guess people get the government they want. What other form of
government besides democracy would you like to see?
Post by Anonymous
This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within.
Destroying the sick and twisted cultural fabric of Ottawa and Eastern Canada
would be the best thing that ever happened to Canada. It is a parasitic,
exploitive, centralist, self-righteous, self-destructive relic of the past.
News
2003-09-09 15:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mountain Goat
Post by News
Post by Anonymous
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
Having the "Goods" in the ground was a stroke of good fortune.
Knowing
Post by Mountain Goat
Post by News
how to properly exploit it is another thing entirely. We're a "Have"
province in a "Have Not" country because of hard work, not simply because of
good geography.
Post by Anonymous
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
So you're complaining that those with money (Who invest, spend and drive
the economy) don't deserve to reap the rewards? Those who take the risk
deserves to reap the rewards. Deal with it.
Post by Anonymous
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
And what Anti-Alberta Newsletter did you steal that one from? Do you
even understand what you just wrote?
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich).
That alone tells me that you know *zero* about this province. Klein
(And his supporters) aren't privatizing the entire system. They want to
allow "Extra" facilities to be privately funded for profit. Gee, reducing
lineups for the general public while creating a nice new tax base sure is a
bad idea......
Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
Post by Anonymous
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact.
Good, then you can prove it. I'm waiting.......
Post by Anonymous
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
Hmmm, interesting theory. Wrong, but interesting.
Post by Anonymous
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence.
"Alberta literally exports its poor....". Well I haven't exactly seen
the SS Troops putting poor people on trains. Care to actually prove this?
Oh wait, you're full of crap, so you can't possible prove this. In fact, by
looking at actual migration patterns we can CLEARLY see that people are
coming from "Poor" economies like the East Coast and Saskatchewan TO
Alberta. This extreme migration (To a province that actually has jobs in
it) is overburdening OUR social infrastructure.
Well most of the people who have come to Alberta from 'have not'
provinces have come seeking jobs. Now sometimes they have come with
unreasonable expectations of the skills needed in our economy. But for
these people what is better, stay where they are for a treadmill of EI
and welfare and occasional work in declining industries, or leave
their families and social support system and try again in a new
location like Alberta? My wife and her cousin are both from Nova
Scotia and have lived and worked productively here since they arrived.
Somewhat reminiscent of our Great-Grandparents coming over from the Old
World to found this country. (Leaving a tough place with family for a
better place without family) And it's good to hear that everyone's been
able to find steady employment since arriving in Alberta. It's sad to say
that the Alberta Advantage (In some people's minds) is 6 figure incomes for
everyone, when in fact it's a plethora of "Middle of the Road" jobs. Still
good jobs, but the streets aren't really paved with gold like many seem to
think.
Post by Mountain Goat
Having said that there is a bit of truth in the previous posters
comments,Alberta is the only province I know of that says 'You can't
have welfare but here's a bus ticket to somewhere else'.
I really don't know where this is coming from. In Alberta there is an
opportunity for virtually everyone to work, so welfare and social assistence
shouldn't really even be needed. *BUT* it certainly does exist for those
who do need it. I can cite a few personal experiences in which I've seen
Alberta Government in action, and no bus tickets were sent out. <Grin>
Determinator
2003-09-09 03:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by News
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich).
That alone tells me that you know *zero* about this province. Klein
(And his supporters) aren't privatizing the entire system. They want to
allow "Extra" facilities to be privately funded for profit. Gee, reducing
lineups for the general public while creating a nice new tax base sure is a
bad idea......
Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
Post by Anonymous
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact.
Good, then you can prove it. I'm waiting.......
you should look you the quotations from Dr. Stephan West... the
guy who was given the roll of privatising everything that
moved...

(off the top of my head) the best axiom Dr. West said was "don't
let them think about it..."

(I hope I have the correct recollection)
BigC
2003-09-09 06:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle
class ass kissers.

I didn't realize that the elite of Alberta had more votes than the
poor.
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich). Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact. In short, Klein should have his nuts ripped
off with a rusty scalpel and shoved up his ass, then his dead carcass
shipped to the US for medical research in cosmetic surgery.
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence. A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
9. The Daishowa - Lubicon dispute represents yet another Alberta-spawned
attack on the rights of Canadians. For a while (until a sane Federal judge
overturned it) an Alberta injunction actually made it illegal to advocate
a boycott of a company's products in public. This battle isn't over,
though. Daishowa has deep pockets.
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
Tand/or T
2003-09-11 04:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I can't think of a better place in Canada to live. Lately, the biggest
problem I've had is with people who come out here a b*tch the whole time how
awful it is, while making a better life for themselves than what they would
have had at 'home'. I'm tired of people coming here for the
opportunities(welfare or work), using helthcare, roads, tax breaks,
shelters, what have you... Then they diss Alberta and Albertans the whole
time they're here. I know of more then a few who've done this, save up
their bucks, move back east and buy a cheap house. How about instead of
'Sunny Alberta', or 'Wild Rose Country', we try these new slogans?
Alberta: the Hibernia training camp!!!
Alberta: Ottawa's b*tch!!!
Alberta: us rednecks dont noe mutch, so itz ok to say we suck!!
Think they'll catch on? should I call marketing?
Post by Anonymous
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle
class ass kissers.
I didn't realize that the elite of Alberta had more votes than the
poor.
Post by Anonymous
From February 2000
1. Albertans tend to be insufferably smug about their relative wealth
compared to other prairie provinces. They refuse to acknowledge the fact
that this wealth is entirely due to historical accident: they stole better
land from the Indians than we did. They tend instead to arrogently
attribute this good fortune to their wisdom and virtue, especially in
their choice of political leadership, never acknowledging that Mao himself
couldn't bankrupt this province.
2. Albertans don't seem to give a fuck about the second-largest income
disparity in the country, which implies that the riches they enjoy are
being distributed only to a chosen elite on the backs of the people who
actually do the work.
3. Alberta is home to a variety of vulgar Marxist ideology that has
infected many modern liberal democracies: the notion that the only thing
that defines "the good" for individuals or society is material comfort
(are you listening, Todd?). One effect of this ideology is that it
collapses all discussion of public policy to those "solutions" which are
"cheapest", leaving aside all other considerations. This leaves society
open to the tyranny of technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than responding
to the will of the public.
4. Ralph Klein was elected by the elite of Alberta and their middle class
ass kissers. This makes those Albertans who voted him in complicit in his
program of destroying Canada from within. He is far more of a threat to
Canadian soverignty than Bouchard. His plans for Medicare in Alberta will
open the door (via NAFTA) to HMO's from the US, a health care sustem which
is vastly inferior to Canada's by any measure (except perhaps its level of
service to the rich). Klein resembles Castro in dealing with dissent. His
efforts to silence researchers and academics who disagree with his
policies is documented fact. In short, Klein should have his nuts ripped
off with a rusty scalpel and shoved up his ass, then his dead carcass
shipped to the US for medical research in cosmetic surgery.
KKK --> National Socialism --> SoCred --> Reform. Can you say Keegstra?
6. Ever notice the Alberta solution to poverty is remarkably similar to
the one in use in the USA? In the US, poverty is exported to other
countries. Wealth is compounded by active violent repression outside the
US with the purpose of keeping labor and resources cheap for domestic
consumers. Alberta literally exports its poor to other provinces, who are
then forced to overburden the social services in their new places of
residence. A reciprocal response would be to deny access to social
services to any former resident of Alberta, but of course nobody in the
other provinces has yet descended to this level of inhumanity.
7. How about privatization? Albertans love privatization. Consider,
however, the ramifications of a privatized army owned by, say, Microsoft,
capable of overthrowing the legitmate government of your country. Sounds
farfetched, doesn't it? Not so. Ranger Oil, a company based in Edmonton,
has employed a private army called Executive Outcomes staffed and trained
by former Afrikkaner torturers and terrorists from South Africa, with the
express purpose of forcibly taking African oil from its rightful owners.
Alberta can claim ownership of the establishment of the concept of the
corporate-owned army to Canada. Yippee.
8. The Albertan tends to like myths, particluarly the "Everything Is
Cheaper in Alberta Because We Don't Have Sales Tax" myth. Of course, the
funding generated in most jurisdictions by sales tax has been replaced by
user fees in Alberta. The average middle class person, who pays the
biggest share of taxes outside of Alberta also pays the biggest share of
user fees inside Alberta. Studies have shown that the actual cost to users
of public services does not decrease when user fees are included. In
short, your net pay in Alberta (or the USA) winds up to be about the same
as it is here.
9. The Daishowa - Lubicon dispute represents yet another Alberta-spawned
attack on the rights of Canadians. For a while (until a sane Federal judge
overturned it) an Alberta injunction actually made it illegal to advocate
a boycott of a company's products in public. This battle isn't over,
though. Daishowa has deep pockets.
10. The quintessential Alberta experience is a visit to Calgary. Tons of
stuff to buy, but the culture consists of a dull robotic death march
toward the dollar sign.
darkness
2003-09-15 14:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anonymous <***@ecn.org> wrote in message news:<***@ecn.org>...
Ya but have you ever been there? Beautiful scenery, really nice
people, lovely cities. Big Sky Country. Actually, most people I have
met from Western Canada have been nice: maybe surviving all that harsh
weather breeds a kind of neighbourliness.

I was only there for a short time but I was very favourably impressed.
I don't begrudge them their wealth.
Loading...