Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Reality Check

I support Lingenfelter's recycled suggestion of creating a fund similar to Alberta's Heritage Fund for the use and benefit of future generations, but I would prefer that the government pay off the debt first. I think future generations do not want to pay for the debts accrued by past governments, regardless of what government created it. And the current interest on debt would help fill those coffers quickly.


  1. It doesn't make sense to create a 'SuperFund' while carrying such a big debt load. Sure our debt has been falling due to prudent Sask Party policies but now is not the time to change directions.

    With the world awash in major debt crises, any jurisdiction which manages to have minimal debt will have a huge structural competitive advantage in the coming decades.

    The last thing I want to see is the build up of a SuperFund where a future NDP government uses the funds to invest in (read nationalize) the Potash companies again.

    That's Link's real play here, he'll need the money to take us back to the mid 1970's

  2. "Sure our debt has been falling due to prudent Sask Party policies"

    HAH! You mean, of course, the massive one-time payment that Wall made when he rode in on Calvert's last budget, before ramping up spending and piling up hidden debt in the Crowns.

    At least try to get your basic facts straight before making broad statements about "structural competitive advantage."

  3. This idea makes me want to vomit. It is just like the banks pretending to help you save money in thru your credit card and debit cards by rounding up your charges. Every economist will tell you that paying off your debt is more important than saving move for a rainy day. He who thinks if Sask needed money quickly we couldn't get it. The debt we carry is keeping this province from giving the average person the tax breaks they need. And if Link thinks setting up some "outside" board to run it sounds like another big government idea.

  4. actually you should do both.

  5. oh so I save $100 and get .0001 % interest but have a $1,000 visa bill charged at 19%/annually
    and this makes sense?? Give me a break.

  6. I'd take the NDP government of fiscal budgets over the Saskatchewan party government of historical deficits.

  7. why are you charging everything to your Visa? what horrible money managing skills, no wonder why you can't think of socking away for a rainy day!

  8. Is it me or are opponents of the Sask Party just making ridiculous responses for the sake of argument.

    Does anyone really on principle disagree that if you have $100 left over, and you have $1,000 in debt with interest accruing that you are better off putting the $100 towards the debt rather than starting a separated savings account and earning less interest on money being saved than you are paying on your debt?

    This isn't about why you have money on your Visa. Saskatchewan has debt, we had it before the SP took power and we'll have it after they leave.

    My god, it is amazing how some people would rather see the province do the wrong thing simply for political gain.

    Not sure why you are coming here Anon 2:19, you are closed minded enough that engaging in thoughtful debate will do nothing.

  9. There's no reason that Saskatchewan has to have a debt when the Sask Party leaves. Keep putting resource windfalls on the debt and it can disappear by the time a different party forms government around 2047.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.