 鲜花( 332)  鸡蛋( 23)
|
本帖最后由 一盎司饭 于 2015-10-5 13:53 编辑 4 A/ V1 l$ Y2 q. G: s
peterpan 发表于 2015-10-5 12:38
9 @- [ K P2 v- [0 E2 X; D2 D0 s1. 不行就不行呗,大家也没指望ndp能平衡预算,但吹牛画饼就不好了吧?) ]1 Y5 ?5 k( I$ e, k* Q! A
2. 我之前也说过了,不要老拿低油 ... , ]# r# P0 T8 I( v# u& W
' L! x$ w5 w# S3 l' ~& q8 r
你想问“为什么PC有盈余”,答案很简单,就两个字:
+ N: B- X) G: J cRalph Klein
' C0 S, Z9 b" X \& n$ x7 o! k- c7 n) ], ^, S
我下面列举了能够查到的历年的省赤字情况。从数据可知,只有Ralph Klein任上是有盈余的。在他之前,要上溯到1985年,也就是30年前,才有盈余。其他的每一年都是赤字!
! i$ e5 _; c' S2 j
3 A1 L; w$ r9 A I7 P7 X2 V* f; A所以结论很简单。如果Ralph Klein参选,我肯定选他。如果没有Ralph Klein参选,我有充分理由相信PC会赤字。从Stelmach到Prentice,已经充分证明了他们仅仅是用PC的名义。他们的政策和Ralph Klein完全不同。Ralph Klein一上台就把省府部门砍了1/3,这次选举只有WR提到了裁减。你用PC10几20年前的情况套用到现在属于刻舟求剑。事实上Ralph Klein在PC历史上属于一个异常情况,Stelmach/Redford/Prentice才是PC的本质。Ralph Klein时期是没有WR的,右翼选民觉得PC可以代表他们。Ralph Klein之后PC往NDP靠拢,才会出现WR的支持基础。
$ }" G; a( ]: c# M, L
" V7 [4 K, O h" ~# I. ?
( F Z8 H/ E1 X: j" m; {
) q8 V. X9 R, X& E. F3 E9 Dhttp://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/ ... it-in-three-decades
# A7 n! r5 X7 Z3 j5 j0 hHistoric Alberta budget balances:
9 r) I6 M- ]. [" C7 ]
8 d6 g9 O9 z5 W' r1981-82: $2.133 billion surplus) G( F9 o. i* P& f+ k( G
) O6 X" r" I9 f+ z R4 ~
1982-83: $796 million deficit
$ W, g2 p: u& w! f# Y5 c1 W
$ U; U' O/ ]- P7 X9 n6 F8 ^1983-84: $129 million surplus6 I$ h6 W3 a+ I( E8 ~* x9 {
$ p; {/ S; e8 O2 h- \$ @: B( T
1984-85: $1.245 billion surplus
# m) |) ?4 X" l9 F2 g/ q
P1 U" D- g$ `* r1985-86: $761 million deficit. E# S, a) u0 r
7 \& t' C7 q: L7 o
1986-87: $4.033 billion deficit: @, K; D1 m) C( d2 K! _/ a5 n h
) }5 b7 H. ?( A$ ^3 K1987-88: $1.365 billion deficit& i C( E( i! R# ^
- f4 ~' K" R& A$ F
1988-89: $2.007 billion deficit
6 L. i( E4 o- |4 n# R+ H; }- X. Z
0 v, o$ D m* n' L1989-90: $2.116 billion deficit
, g# r# N- Q |9 J) N* T) }: i& V5 J0 x# n0 G8 e2 c2 v
1990-91: $1.831 billion deficit0 ]+ |. d) G4 r- h
2 N0 u7 z: X. I( H7 W$ {4 \
1991-92: $2.629 billion deficit* G" q8 m4 ^% v3 e2 T9 L9 ]
6 B5 w0 J. e6 n0 A2 r
1992-93: $3.324 billion deficit
: z! R8 r4 E g
2 f( ^# N3 S* ?0 S( s6 O1993-94: $1.371 billion deficit+ M2 G x1 A% L; E
1 K( Q0 i# K R1 n! \. }" V4 G1994-95: $938 million surplus
" f% Z F- P' [# i0 b
1 z0 d& A6 l7 {2 s s5 G! B1995-96: $1.151 billion surplus
O3 h3 {/ l X( H4 u8 J$ w; Z
' Z5 ]! k# u) A) |: Z l1 i1996-97: $2.489 billion surplus4 i3 B1 \& ~9 b0 e- Q
# z7 t$ V+ g6 f4 |0 t5 O1997-98: $2.659 billion surplus3 g- ]& ^6 {+ x- @- z
& Q% W/ n$ O% g8 `1998-99: $1.094 billion surplus7 B7 i, v: e' v; D
" O; h# O5 h; v9 p. d$ V1999-00: $2.791 billion surplus
' Q" \; X5 m9 w8 N3 Y1 L- v1 w o9 a9 i) I( \# u8 {
2000-01: $6.571 billion surplus
: c% [/ o8 m- t; l$ @" [, ^* X- Q1 Y& C
2001-02: $1.081 billion surplus
) I/ ?9 Y% J% @2 L5 G2 V t* I, d2 |0 n" }0 u# ~, @ f7 S, P
2002-03: $2.133 billion surplus# w! ` w2 v2 T- J
0 J# t# _5 u+ Q
2003-04: $4.136 billion surplus6 z2 o+ x& ~9 T
3 ^* y7 k- \5 p! _2 t2004-05: $5.175 billion surplus
2 ~) J ?$ x' m" d0 `3 ?$ Q' N" F _
2005-06: $8.551 billion surplus3 I* c; N/ U' n2 V
8 l" T. Z- Z9 N. X2006-07: $8.510 billion surplus
$ H8 o" J/ J0 m" {
( i* X4 _0 d* O* k: l8 N' o2007-08: $4.581 billion surplus. J7 Z. v# E. ]' k
4 v3 u, w* U- l1 R. @. t# R
2008-09: $852 million deficit' C; ^' J% M# |+ t+ Y2 Z# b
5 C; I- f3 j |2009-10: $1.032 billion deficit
1 ]$ \' A( p, s/ Q4 E- [' F9 o' y; w$ g
2010-11: $3.410 billion deficit* D# ~; ^9 n7 P- e1 G+ |
1 {$ Y$ v2 ^! R8 k ^' u2011-12: $23 million deficit
, P) Y3 I: m/ w* c' @0 r W
' a P' Q% K7 `+ ]2 \: ^2012-13: $2.842 billion deficit
( |( J- q* @: U H' ]3 t! l
# p6 L M: x5 `5 y# p3 f& [2013-14: $302 million deficit |
|