 鲜花( 332)  鸡蛋( 23)
|
本帖最后由 一盎司饭 于 2015-10-5 13:53 编辑
" c+ H8 b n! a% j4 s9 P* `" [peterpan 发表于 2015-10-5 12:38( F0 t/ q3 M6 E) }9 n* l: s
1. 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?( l: K" d4 x; H! b+ F4 G% \, ^
2. 我之前也说过了,不要老拿低油 ...
- \5 }, @$ q* b* k& S5 V: L8 L# ^) y4 w3 ~" L& ^- K
你想问“为什么PC有盈余”,答案很简单,就两个字:4 N/ S5 @- M4 K1 Z9 ?, X
Ralph Klein1 S, s7 P, I) X2 a7 @
$ U, M9 D1 B( v- m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!
6 ~2 v' V& d& K) c4 A% i% ]6 y- T2 @* l* e- B- y3 n
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。
: ]4 U1 R4 Z2 D1 \- S# g. g6 W- \3 N0 a$ R
7 ?0 {+ I( T4 O7 p7 w& p- W) J! u$ m: Z
6 ^, P) r' k9 [3 F) M) D: B
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/ ... it-in-three-decades
7 |& i; }/ S, k2 U! ^! e8 G/ ]0 kHistoric Alberta budget balances:
' [6 @* ^4 f% e8 s
]$ E4 A8 P8 R( k1981-82: $2.133 billion surplus9 a3 R, f9 w. W2 n, I
" Q2 H4 f H) f0 ^" a2 Q5 U4 O. Y9 e
1982-83: $796 million deficit0 \0 q8 ?# Z) D. S1 [* {
% ?/ }+ G# c8 P8 n/ C+ s
1983-84: $129 million surplus% J; t: k" o% {: m6 R; {/ Y0 S6 H
8 s* n+ }! r6 R: s0 A
1984-85: $1.245 billion surplus
6 h7 V. l( k8 b, y" i# R1 h. G, s! @- U
1985-86: $761 million deficit* E0 n, k" E: y Q/ }2 t
2 e! t8 L8 \; k) L9 U% i
1986-87: $4.033 billion deficit% i$ i/ J4 ^3 g: K! y i2 t
# |6 H4 z/ s, X
1987-88: $1.365 billion deficit
6 Q, B z- y( D: w7 E3 j
% B3 d8 C( i7 [, A& O- Z- x1988-89: $2.007 billion deficit
2 z2 ]/ q' {5 t( j$ C9 Y; g) p# \! _0 s2 K. h3 F! j) Q6 }
1989-90: $2.116 billion deficit
5 z: G" l; l9 J. T q. g9 \; a H/ h6 |6 |7 x
1990-91: $1.831 billion deficit
# i2 X" x) }/ Y. H+ Q
9 p! f+ R# M1 @& g1991-92: $2.629 billion deficit
; W5 a6 _" v3 Q" ?% j$ }1 P' x" I4 }2 G& R0 Q
1992-93: $3.324 billion deficit
5 t; ~+ h4 D% G a( c+ Y5 n& V; U% L. v* `& |/ S1 b5 ]
1993-94: $1.371 billion deficit
* V9 s) ]* S8 y- f5 O
" p- E: X5 @5 U8 [1994-95: $938 million surplus
- ?7 c& E a3 Z" G* w- Z, q6 a& U; P5 k5 r0 t: @
1995-96: $1.151 billion surplus
8 L1 o& f# }) Z$ |" s0 r: _* K2 U+ C6 c5 }8 j9 p
1996-97: $2.489 billion surplus& M" z& w$ R w) Z3 {6 e
! d! Y* P, w$ V! L5 d9 Y1997-98: $2.659 billion surplus4 X/ X" ^: D3 ^* E, ]8 y$ M
' f4 B" W; B5 p; Q: [1998-99: $1.094 billion surplus2 n, a C% ]4 `) B+ i$ q2 \/ j+ q
3 u$ K; j6 G, p1 T, d" p; }1999-00: $2.791 billion surplus! f; @4 s! [8 n1 c! y
" O- ^8 r1 x9 |2000-01: $6.571 billion surplus0 ^: n0 `. y7 W- c7 C* `5 h
- K9 F) W# M" t8 B$ ^! g" b2001-02: $1.081 billion surplus
* R2 f: l& S& O$ U) n' H/ |
0 s6 W. L' H" x, J2002-03: $2.133 billion surplus% G! S( Y+ \ K* z
; g3 D( p, k# h2003-04: $4.136 billion surplus
+ u( I h- w) r5 l9 k# p
& S/ ?* n7 E& S1 |2004-05: $5.175 billion surplus
$ ^$ C* l# Q+ _$ w/ h4 ]
5 Q/ a, K( C* k7 D5 A3 Y2005-06: $8.551 billion surplus( D/ |5 ~& Q$ M- h
1 _* }7 ~* M' L4 k* d1 ?6 j0 t6 x2006-07: $8.510 billion surplus
1 d. f0 }2 Q# f4 e( j6 z5 W' g3 X- E8 e- i* x- z, k( T) v, H
2007-08: $4.581 billion surplus' x2 P% |& j: V+ Y' K: [: q
% @5 D$ I- T, R1 m5 P, \* i, w2008-09: $852 million deficit i& [: h# p ^5 X
% ]. y! k7 J0 }& A1 l" w7 A
2009-10: $1.032 billion deficit4 a. G4 y8 h2 G& l: S
/ M, _2 L# @5 q" K/ J+ _+ q* G2010-11: $3.410 billion deficit
5 I7 b! e+ M% Y c' [6 a9 C5 u
$ k' M+ R% S& j2 ~; J' G6 O# s2011-12: $23 million deficit. E- L1 ?' D. R6 v
2 k& D5 l$ C; s7 H! \
2012-13: $2.842 billion deficit5 q7 r/ C$ \1 ~3 s
7 u {% B5 E; m/ D0 x1 I8 Z2013-14: $302 million deficit |
|