 鲜花( 332)  鸡蛋( 23)
|
本帖最后由 一盎司饭 于 2015-10-5 13:53 编辑 . R& R" y0 u+ u
peterpan 发表于 2015-10-5 12:38/ d5 H- r) X9 L+ t$ C! ]5 l9 O& \* k
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?
3 {" y' ?- g$ N+ y4 O# n/ ?2. 我之前也说过了,不要老拿低油 ...
4 }, p4 I3 g' ^! W; ?
! }# H, c8 N% a0 e" M, [' F" s你想问“为什么PC有盈余”,答案很简单,就两个字:+ a: C9 ]3 v& s: r. S5 A+ Z7 b
Ralph Klein
% `, h, }6 U' q! F8 E8 O
# Y! N( k, s% P( ]% i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!! O+ t1 u6 D+ b6 {# J
- P m0 ~5 g: W7 P/ l1 F$ q7 S# w5 @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。2 |+ A/ w- c- n
( \: `. p) Y- S) o: [
! _+ w# _; f) K2 [
* I& ?4 b/ l1 S9 D* e6 w) g: X0 I- z
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/ ... it-in-three-decades
h! Z5 p7 {% W+ iHistoric Alberta budget balances:
! d# G( l9 w4 Y$ a8 x' P
8 R$ L( s* ~4 f+ l) _1981-82: $2.133 billion surplus+ j, }. L' Y! L1 M
) ^- n( ?$ J6 u6 G0 q, x4 W8 R) n1982-83: $796 million deficit& g5 }* |4 @ e: k* e7 a7 I. I( i
! H; p* I8 { t, Q) c1 R. M
1983-84: $129 million surplus
% Q* ~8 X+ z: v8 t4 v1 j- \3 ?3 ^% a3 G& A2 V( F" m+ \
1984-85: $1.245 billion surplus, W2 c1 j; [" o1 Z6 e
" L& a+ K6 Q' G
1985-86: $761 million deficit
9 x$ ^" p- I( S7 I) z
( t4 w5 ?# B0 W, [6 p1986-87: $4.033 billion deficit/ F7 ?* Z0 ]! x) Q8 o
1 F" J* c/ c" W# o/ U1987-88: $1.365 billion deficit: W- E. I+ V6 V$ f4 i
/ e3 T$ ]0 g& ?; \; B
1988-89: $2.007 billion deficit2 f7 ]) ~* \0 `9 ]& f0 `
' k, @7 h0 K2 v1 H: t/ Y
1989-90: $2.116 billion deficit
( `8 S- g& `5 P" X) Z& X0 y
3 e. ^& t. ` r& ~9 \3 p( @; n/ e6 i1990-91: $1.831 billion deficit _0 Y ]6 ^. g( A: F4 E
+ G$ T3 n9 D& P5 B9 O+ L
1991-92: $2.629 billion deficit5 _4 r/ k( t2 ^5 @ x# i- m
8 V5 u' V0 \1 k$ A
1992-93: $3.324 billion deficit
O6 k/ e% p& L" T; i M( n& o1 _! d- C8 @
1993-94: $1.371 billion deficit
0 Q, _" M7 v1 p
+ u, m' \/ s7 ]1994-95: $938 million surplus
& i5 {# |" S2 s- S W2 s f1 U% G4 s# x3 e$ |1 a
1995-96: $1.151 billion surplus6 ?0 s( F; E. h# r! O: m: c
( [8 d9 v$ M9 n5 Z# Z1996-97: $2.489 billion surplus
F8 j/ B8 W. R5 A' N- P% f# ]. ^; j. p5 Z$ W( K
1997-98: $2.659 billion surplus
2 u4 Z' |* ]) h# O& g: }& H7 T) m/ x0 c- x- L, d9 t, j
1998-99: $1.094 billion surplus
+ S7 l8 o8 S* }. m) ~8 R ?) V Y u" |1 U# D- l
1999-00: $2.791 billion surplus
' Y) B/ u4 O3 A+ H( v" m7 W1 f6 j, _
2000-01: $6.571 billion surplus( Q5 p+ k# h" e2 p
8 `( r# l' }. n& [
2001-02: $1.081 billion surplus. u+ x1 Q% G6 l! |
" O# {9 m' Z- T/ M) }% V0 h
2002-03: $2.133 billion surplus! I& V2 k. v9 M
0 n j1 H9 @) e1 Y0 w9 \& {$ I2003-04: $4.136 billion surplus' w9 _; T5 v% ?2 h
1 X) j2 V& D! d* W5 j
2004-05: $5.175 billion surplus7 Y ~7 a* u" p, v: o8 u/ R
# q( B+ }0 T) Q: A; d
2005-06: $8.551 billion surplus
0 t& l- H2 g* [; N: x0 i F& N& n' o+ Q$ p3 G h0 Y
2006-07: $8.510 billion surplus
! w" v5 w5 R; x6 v+ `
: i/ S6 A/ g: ^1 v1 R0 Y5 D2007-08: $4.581 billion surplus- [" \) F2 d Q" e4 o1 N- H' d; [5 \ H
# i0 z' T# c6 k1 H2008-09: $852 million deficit9 S* y7 q, e( M: G& T/ @
; S# Q* J# k0 S. g# G8 Y \: J2009-10: $1.032 billion deficit% t; x }4 g9 r& w% D/ R
* _7 K" H2 q0 A% u) C. i: x2010-11: $3.410 billion deficit" l$ c7 J0 B2 T4 R3 u
! r* l4 |. @) _" |4 F9 O
2011-12: $23 million deficit1 B3 p/ C" g t5 Q! f
]2 C; v$ R- a7 M) {2012-13: $2.842 billion deficit- x5 Q u+ H1 X
8 O$ e5 z8 F0 W% T; M+ b4 w
2013-14: $302 million deficit |
|