ForsbergTheGreat
-
Posts
12,354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by ForsbergTheGreat
-
-
21 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Climate change
Breathing releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, increasing CO2 levels, trapping heat, and contributing to global climate change.
Fixed that, Now do us all a favour and hold your breath.
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, BPA said:
Like anything, put a price on it and people will try to use it less or avoid it.
When there is a cost effective alternative maybe. But for most people there’s not and all it ends up doing is become an extra expense.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Again,some good points.
The article jumped out to me because, again, due to the uncertainty of the industry... I can understand the feeling of some young adults. As the years go by, the 'sunset' of the oil industry must be getting closer. Why would young intelligent people chase those careers? The whole world seems to be turning away from it, with all this climate talk and regulations etc...
I think you’re thinking into too much. It’s not like kids were thinking about there careers and were like, “hmm I can go to school for 8 years and can become a doctor, or go work on the rigs”.
And we’re talking kids, the same kids that think an arts major will provide them with a future income. On the whole (my anecdotal evidence) I do see let people involve in the industry but that’s simply due to a lower number of available jobs and has nothing to due with climate change. People in Alberta laugh at the idea that a tax will solve global CO2 emissions, heck we’re surprised there isn’t a tax purposes to stop the spread of the coronavirus.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
I'm trying.
Thanks for your break down, you make some good points.
I think what resonates with me is the attraction, or the lack there of, that the Oil industry might have for young people.
Sure but how there could be a large number of factors that have zero to due with oil industry that are far more realistic. Such as considering a dip in the age gap for those years.
and looking into Alberta’s birth rate, between 1994-2002 it experienced the lowest stretch over the last 25 years dipping below 40k annual births per year. No years outside of that range went below 40k. 1997 was the lowest year with only 37,037 births that year. Today it’s up to 55k.
So again between 1994-2002 were the lowest birth years. Guess which age range those kids would fit into on a 2019 chart......17-25. Seems pretty sound logic as to why we see a drop between the 20-24.... or we could just blame oil.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-losing-young-adults-census-data-analysis-1.5444969
Why Calgary is losing its young adults
In one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, those aged 20-24 are the only shrinking age group
Nearly a quarter-million more people called the city home in 2019 than in 2009, with growth across every age range — except one: during that period, the number of 20- to 24-year-olds shrunk by 4,400, according to municipal census data, a decline of 5.5 per cent...
"They don't want to work in oil and gas — either because of the environmental implications of it or they just don't really see a future in that field — and feel like if they live in Calgary, that's kind of a written-in-stone future for them. So they felt the need to move away."
So they talk to two students who provide them with anecdotal evidence and then make a claim. Hmm if that’s the case what about the 12% growth from 25-34 year olds? Why the 21% growth from 35-44 year olds.
it also failed to mention that the for the past three years this age demographic has been growing which completely debunks these two anecdotal claims.
All in all just poor research and poor reasoning in an attempt to sell anti oil rhetoric.
When you happened to look at the growth in Vancouver for the same years. You see population grew by 10.5% but wait. Between 40-55 you see a 4% drop. Better go talk to a few random people to and use there anecdotal evidence to create a conclusion and write a report for CBC.
Come on people we’re smarter than this. This is junior high type news reporting.
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Ryan Strome, but but.
QuoteThe Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is forecasting capital spending will rise by 8.4 per cent to $11.6 billion this year, citing the Alberta government’s corporate tax cut and the easing of oil production limits as catalysts.
“It has been a tough five years, and Canada has not fared well at a time when global demand continues to rise,” CAPP chief executive Tim McMillan told Bloomberg News.
“It has taken some hard work, especially at the provincial level, to change the global view and put Canada back in a position where it can start to attract appropriate levels of capital again.”
Expenditures for the country’s oil and natural gas sector could increase more than five per cent to $37 billion, the forecast states. Outside the oilsands, spending is projected to rise about four per cent to $25.4 billion.
The additional $2 billion in capital spending this year will create or sustain about 11,800 direct and indirect jobs across Canada, CAPP projected. About 8,100 of those jobs will be in Alberta, which has struggled with elevated unemployment since the 2014 price crash
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BCNeil said:
This needs to be a playoff matchup
That would be an unreal 7 games. Needs to happen
-
1
-
-
"Almost as cool as tying a provincial pension plan directly to resource revenues.
That doesn't seem like a bad idea at all "
Cough cough...man you love making yourself look dumb.
The best quote....
QuoteAt a time when many British Columbians are protesting the Trans-Mountain pipeline expansion, their pension money is likely invested in oil,
but but albertans are the dumb ones....
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Coconuts said:
Ovi's tied with that big ugly mess.
11 goals in his last 5 games. Unreal
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, BPA said:
From the few recent posts, I gather that AB is upset about equalization payments.
Getting another pipeline through so AB gets more revenue is not going to change the real problem. And that is AB doesn't want to send equalization payments. So even if more money is made, there will still be the complaints of equilization payments.
From a few articles I read, only 4 provinces are "Have" Provinces (BC, AC, SK, and NL). Unfortunately population of all those Provinces combined doesn't even equal ON population.
What really needs to happen is for ON and QU to improve and become "Have" Provinces.
In current transfer payments there’s a lot of rule set up that determines on how much each province gives. It’s not simply you make the most, you pay the most that people love to parrot so much.
First, we have fiscal stabilization that pays up to $60 per capita to provinces that suddenly lose more than 5% of their revenue. It’s why a province like Ontario still received $1 billion despite being a have province. Alberta should also fall into that category since lost more than 5% the last few years but here’s the kicker, fiscal stabilization doesn’t count for natural resource revenue unless it loses over 50%. So Alberta gets next to no benefit for that.
But where Natural resources don’t account for fiscal stabilization, they sure do count for equalization. With Equalization payments it’s not just the personal income taxes of individuals that so many here love to parrot. There are five different revenue streams taken into consideration, personal income taxes, business income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes and Alberta’s biggest stream natural resource revenues. Because Alberta is able to generate large amounts of revenue from it’s natural resource it will always be on the hook for equalization payments, even if the personal and business income taxes drop below other provinces.
The formula to calculated the “how much” is in place for 3 year segments. It’s set up this way to allow for changes in the market. With the way Alberta has been hurting in the down turn of oil the last four years, you would assume this the ideal reason for adjustment. But Trudeau approved the current plan to remain the same for another 3 years in 2018.
It’s a system that has some major flaws that many of you are not willing to admit. One example would be A province like Quebec has government owned hydro, they can technically artificially keep prices low to bring in lows revenue that in turn makes the province look poorer than they actually are = more equalization money. It’s a win/win for them as lower hydro looks good on a provincial political level but also helps keep their ability to generate revenue lower than it actually should be.
trevor Tombe did a decent job simplifying in that news article to give people who have zero clue a rough idea on how it works. The problem is you got people like hip that take the simplified approach as gospel and are willing to die on that argument Pretending they know how it works. But if you really enjoy trevor Tombe. He writes a number of blog posts on equalization payments and he goes way more in depth on it far beyond most here’s comprehension. But if you can keep up. One I read a few months ago did a really good job explaining how complex the formula really is, how the formula leaves a lot of grey area in the numbers (aka Ontario last year) and even how some provinces (Quebec) takes full advantage of the system and will never change because it’s in there favor, like I mentioned above.
anyways this is like the 5th times I’ve posted this in this very thread and I’m tired of it when it seems to go on deaf ears. So I’m done with this topic and thread for a while. Take this post for what it’s worth and do what ever you wish with it, I won’t loose sleep over it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, inane said:
funny how you can make the most money and have all the nicest things but still somehow feel like you're giving away all your money and be hard done by. the tiniest violin isn't tiny enough for that attitude from greedy pigs.
St. Louis blues just won the cup, by your logic them trying to remain cup champs is just greedy.
“Let some one else have a turn“
“why can’t you share”.Haha and that my friend, is why you are on the bottom and will remain on the bottom.
QuoteA little self-reflection on how entitled and douchey you sound is in order. Try your hardest to think beyond your massive entitlement and greed and perhaps give fleeting thought to the benefits you derive from slumming it in Canada with the rest of us before you wexit off in your scrooge mcduck wet dream.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
Never said the rich were the problem. Never said the rich were evil. The entitlement swings both ways.
Cutting taxes for the wealthy only results in them being able to buy another vacation home, or another sports car for their fleet. Or more money in their offshore accouts. Cutting taxes for the poorer members of society, giving an extra $100 in their pockets results in that money getting spent and trickles through the economy creating all kinds of economic activity.
Just because you see it as pocket change doesn’t mean that’s how they view it. People constantly try to compare and fit their own lifestyle into the lifestyle of others. “You don’t need that fancy car or the vacation home in Scottsdale.” But who are you to judge someone’s lifestyle. They are able to achieve that by bringing something that society had a demand for. That lifestyle is the reward for filling that supply. That lifestyle is what motivates people to put in the extra hours or hard work. take it away and quality of life drastically drops. Why would someone spend 8 years in university and rack up a ton of student debt to become a doctor only to have the same financial freedom as the kid working at McDonald’s? Doesn’t sound very appealing.
Having more is not a sin. Claiming it’s immoral is just envy.
QuoteBut hey, you keep on keeping on arguing that the wealthy should get more and more while demonizing the poorer members of society
I never said that. I pointed out the idea that people today are already living off the backs of the rich. In Canada the top 10% of earners pays 70% of all the taxes and you want them do more.
-
3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:
Haha this one hits home.
So does this...-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Hearing "some of you have zero desire to learn" while people are constantly disproving the exactsame erroneous talking points that a few people parrot in defense of the state of things in Alberta over the last 50 years is kind of funny
haha good one. the ones being disproved is you, over and over and over. It’s not your fault you basic photography knowledge limits your ability to comprehend simple logic, that you resort to stealing other people opinions from Facebook and Twitter and trying to pass them off as your own.
QuoteA person only has to go back 20-40-50 pages to see the exact same statements being stated here having been disproven back then. But yes, the people who are "anti Alberta" are the ones who refuse to learn.
please do because I’m not reposting any of the debunking facts I’ve “dummified” to your level anymore. If you want to walk around the world believing your misguided knowledge is correct so be it. You’re a no body anyway I won’t loose any sleep over it.QuoteAs told by the people who think any statement to the contrary of the stance they've taken means a person is anti Alberta, literally against an entire province and millions of their fellow Canadians
How’s the move coming?
-
2
-
-
31 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
The waste of time is your group complaining about Alberta being screwed when Albertans set the rules that we all currently play by.
The waste of time is that you think we are anti Alberta and Wexit is pro. Sorry to see you stuck in your delusional echo chamber of woah is me we're being screwed.
It's like a rich guy complaining about how much money they pay in taxes, yet the effective percentage of his income is less than his secretary.
Alberta is the rich guy complaining about how much they pay and they selfishly want more more more. Get over yourself. If Alberta's economy tanks and the provincial tax structure changes you move from a have to a have not. And yes, other provinces have switched have/have not status.
thank you so sharing your viewpoint that represents a very large and growing viewpoint in the country. Rich people aren’t the problem. So what if rich people want to keep more of their hard earned $. They already pay 80% of the taxes in the country, they create stimulus and job growth and come up with ways to create competition that improves quality of life. But for some reason people think rich people are evil.
Entitlement in today’s age, you don’t bite the hand that feed you.
-
5 minutes ago, BPA said:
So you know the landowner?
Great!!! You should tell him the info that Ryan Strome mentioned earlier about future technologies and future extractions.
Nope I don’t know Dwight popowich but as someone who has a number of abandon wells on his family land, I understand the value $$$ that we received from them.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:
Ya, except for a time Ontario didn't and Newfoundland did. Then their economies changed .
If Alberta wants a piece, their tax structure and their economy needs to change. More taxes and poorer economic performance. No Albertans want that, except people like you who complain about how Alberta is screwed. It isn't.
See the frustrating part is when you see quotes like this after it’s been explained 100x on this very thread. People need to understand how equalization payments are calculated.
This thread is a joke, some of you have zero desire to learn...or debate for that matter. You’d rather just pretend like you know it all and keep regurgitating that same garbage over and over despite the numerous attempts to help you gain a better understanding.
Anti Alberta “1+2=6”
pro Alberta “Nope that is incorrect..... here is why [present trying doing this to get more accurate numbers”
Anti Alberta goes silent. Pro Alberta assumes it’s them finally putting the pieces together and gaining more clarity,....nope, 10 days later.....
Anti Alberta: “1+2=6“
What a waste of everyone’s time.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, BPA said:
Well it appears that was not well conveyed to that rural landowner in AB.
He also wasn’t complaining when the yearly oil check for that well was coming in each year.
-
Haha, meanwhile he's still confusing Federal and Provincial crown land even though it's been explained to him a 100 times.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Warhippy said:
Do you think it's fair that the Alberta government is cutting services while spending more than the former NDP. While giving huge breaks to companies that are still leaving, then telling municipalities and private land owners owed hundreds of millions that are begging for help to effectively suffer
Yes or no Strome
Ask #11 without an answer
When you throw out a blanket yes or no statement, taken out of context and applied in a negative connotation, it shows that you either have a lack of understanding on the matter or you are purposely being intellectually dishonest. You can decide which one of these grouping you fall into
It is fair the UPC budget has a higher spend? Yes, so what. Just because you portray this as a negative check mark doesn’t mean it is, that’s a far too simplistic outlook. The OUTCOME of that spend is what is to be judged, not the action of spending. Spending more is very justifiable in many cases or would you disagree Mr. I spent 17k on camera equipment this year. Not many people attempt to apply a negative spin on bringing in more revenue but here you are. And more revenue is exactly what is forecasted the UPC’s evil spend will do.
Is it fair for the UPC to cut service? Yes, again so what. Alberta has a debt problem and it’s costing us over 2 billion per year. Sometimes in a household when the income is not coming in the way it was before, you have to curb where you over spend. I’m assuming you work for yourself. When you made that jump to start on your own, you likely went out and increased your spend on new gear and marketing…but in the same measure you likely cut back on other areas you figured you could control better. That’s how budgeting works, in order to spur long term growth sometimes you have to cut back in the short term. So yes, it is 100% fair.
Did UPC give corp. a tax break? Yes, and jobs still left, so what. As much we would like It was never going to save every single job on the market place. Huskey announce in March (pre election) they were planning on massive job cuts as they hadn’t reduced their employee expense in the past 3 years, despite the market getting worse. They were overdue and then followed up with Q2 being 800 million below pervious year profits. So yes job losses were going to happen. It was nice they job a 250 million tax break and that did reduced the total number of layoffs but no seems to care about that. As for this tax break creating jobs. I’ve already posted you links of companies stating the tax breaks have helped them expand their job force.
Companies are leaving due to global market and national issues. These companies are the backbone of what keeps Alberta going, without them Alberta’s (and Canada’s) quality of life suffers. There needs to be incentive for them to stay. You are so quick to call out a plan, but I’m curious as to how you would deal with the situation.Did UPC tell municipalities to pound sand? Nope, they didn’t, in fact they have created a reimbursement plan and encouraged municipalities to take legal action. Again already explained this but long term vs short term strategy. It’s better to work and put food on the table than to quit and starve.
Now I know you are going to do exactly what you claim strome is doing, and ignore. But this isn’t grade 2, context is important. You ignorantly choose to ignore all the important context that was provide simply because it doesn’t jive with your anit UPC rhetoric and It’s beyond your ability to comprehend. that’s sad you don’t care to expand your understanding. But it’s your life, if you want to close your eyes, cover your ears, and stomp your feet, shouting you’re wrong, who am I to tell you how to live. Not my type of character or how I’d raise my son but you do you. Either way you, you might be able to sway some of the other posters on this board that have a even more limited understanding but to people like strome and I who are able to comprehend the full situation, You just look dumb, childish, gullible and extremely uninformed. People like are you what makes both sides on political debates look bad.
Until you decide you want to not be so narrow minded maybe you better stick to photography.
-
2
-
-
Time for some Friday humor.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:
yes, nuclear. Small scale nuclear tech has come a very long way Rowdy, its a great option.
I agree on the refinery, would just prefer to see it first nations owned.
Nuclear really has and the carbon footprint print is small. It’s strange that it’s not even considered for the most when transitioning to cleaner energy.
-
2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:
Btw I see the question changed.
I think u smoke to much pot.
Hippy are moving to Alberta, yes or no?
Hippy are you the biggest liar on cdc, yes or no?
Haha you doing it wrong, you have to construct a loaded question so that you can spin the answer to suit your narrative.For example.
Hippy, do you enjoy daily making yourself look like a fool on CDC? yes or no.
or
Hippy, do like lying about the price of gas you paid, in a made up story you being in airdrie? Yes or No
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:
Lol no you claimed fuel prices were far higher based on your source you quoted from the US. Face it, you looked ridiculous that day. You also said you would take a picture of the receipt and post it..
Btw FTG isn't wrong. You didn't even quote a source.
Yep, not only did he not show his source. He used the one media outlet that purposely added a very anti conservative spin on it. Gee I wonder why???. It was reported on so many other outlets including his favorite CBC. The reason he didn’t quote those sources is because they were much more reasonable on the situation as it’s quite complex and not a simple “UPC bad” that Hippy attempts to make every .
Its funny because you see people here claiming that we need to look out for these local municipalities as they are not getting what they deserve. And yes that is a fair argument, these municipalities count on this tax income. (I purposely bolded that). But what we are seeing is a down turn where many of these small natural gas producers are currently on the verge of bankruptcy, if you go after them you aren’t going to get much in terms of assets. You wouldn’t even get a years’ worth of taxes back and on top of that the companies will be forced to shut shop. Great that how business works “as hippy states”. But what happens next year when there is no replacement and ZERO taxes coming in. Again these municipalities count on this tax income. Bankrupting these companies assures you will never had that tax income coming in again. Smart plan right?
So yes in the short term, municipalities rightfully deserve their taxes, but at what extent are the also willing to sewer any long term impact on bringing in those taxes. That’s why the UPC is tying to find a solution, work with the oil companies so that they can get back on there feet while at the same time reimbursing municipalities as much as possible. It’s not perfect, but is it not better to have a job you hate putting food on your table, than to quit and starve.
In other news I was quite happy to see a lot of the conservative candidates rip apart Décarie stance on being gay. Cons need to back away from the social con vote regardless of your personal standpoint.
Quinn Hughes | #43 | D
in Current Roster
Posted
Dahlin today has 31 points in 46 games as a 19 year old.
in the 1967 another 19 year old put up 31 points in 46 games.