Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

And what do you propose we do with the children of families who cannot afford to pay for the cost of their children's education?

I never said to get rid of the public system. I'm just saying the private system uses less public money by putting more of the costs to the users. A good thing for taxpayers.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire

I never said to get rid of the public system. I'm just saying the private system uses less public money by putting more of the costs to the users. A good thing for taxpayers.

Well, it would be a good thing for wealthy taxpayers and a bad thing for poor taxpayers. Also, it would be a good thing for older, retired taxpayers who were educated in the public school system, whose children were educated in the public school system, but who no longer have school-aged children. It would be a very bad thing for taxpayers who still have, or one day will have, school-aged children.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Barnission

That is not true, 'we' voted out the HST, which was unbelievably stupid by any count to do so. I thought the HST was a good tax, a very good replacement to GST/PST, but that's not really the point. There is no sane, logical argument behind getting rid of a tax (it's not that horrible) and then re-pay the federal government well over a billion dollars. That's a horrible idea, but sadly the people here will never understand how that will come back to haunt us.

People in BC didn't get rid of the tax because they thought it was the logical thing to do. Most voted against it because of the way it was brought in, dictator-ish, instead of having a vote which they ended up having. I honestly believe talking to people if the BC government would have put it up for vote at the begin with and/or offered some incentive to bring in HST besides make costs even higher out here (like the 10% HST they were promising if we kept it) people would have voted differently.

It seems for most I've spoken to, they voted to get rid of it because of the way it was brought in, not because it was a good or bad idea. I personally didn't vote at all because I don't care either way because I realized no matter the outcome it was going to cost me money.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Are you seriously suggesting that the Premier should fly coach?

Why not? Alot business travel is done by coach.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by llama64

Cost for the Redford trip to London is reported to be $84,000. (includes not just travel and accommodations, but 3 hosted events*)

That's... less then the cost of ONE DOCTOR.

In an attempt to stimulate business worth BILLIONS.

Whining about the cost of this trip is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding towards the purpose of the trip and it's potential benefits.

@Eddybeers: look up the word "largesse" (proper spelling). It doesn't mean what you think it means.

*having seen a budget for your average political event I'm astonished they could fit three in there for 84k...

God forbid anyone question the costs associated with the trip

Should we give all politicians the benefit of the doubt?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why not? Alot business travel is done by coach.

How many executives do you know who travel by coach? Seriously, we're bordering on full ###### here.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How many executives do you know who travel by coach? Seriously, we're bordering on full ###### here.

Are we? Try getting those coveted exit row seats when you fly, most if not all are taken by business travelers now. Fly cheaper and still get that extra leg room.

[Slava]

Well Dion I laid out how you could easily hit $70-80k a few pages ago. You're still insistent that this could be done on the cheap despite the fact that you said earlier you have no idea what it should cost. At this point I can only assume you read the Bev Oda comparison somewhere and are determined to make the shoe fit.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well Dion I laid out how you could easily hit $70-80k a few pages ago. You're still insistent that this could be done on the cheap despite the fact that you said earlier you have no idea what it should cost. At this point I can only assume you read the Bev Oda comparison somewhere and are determined to make the shoe fit.

I missed your previous post. As for what you did post, I'm not dismissing what you said and that you may very well be right. It's just that we ever see the breakdown of costs associated with it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Fares would not be that much cheaper. Its about the time when the flights occur and where (London, when the Olympics are schedule to start), so I'd imagine airlines were probably charging a very premium rate. Same with hotel rooms. But this is as good an opportunity as any to interact with many worldwide politcal figures. To me this is such an inconsequential sum of money to the whole, and unless it comes out that this was an Oda special, then we can get all up in arms. Until then, this seems like a whole lot of nothing to me.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Dion

God forbid anyone question the costs associated with the trip

Should we give all politicians the benefit of the doubt?

No we should not.

The trip costs should, however, be under the scrutiny of people who actually know what the hell they are talking about and not just the general "joe" Albertan who literally has no clue what they are complaining about. Critics appear to be spewing party line without any critical thought whatsoever.

Until some facts about misuse of public funds (ie personal spending) are brought up this trip is in range of what I know of to be acceptable for an even of this magnitude. So yes, I questioned the costs and found them to be perfectly fine.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think people would bitch as much if the Redford government wouldn't be pissing away all the savings that Alberta has made the past few years.

While the economy needed a boost, I don't think you could really fault them for deficit spending, but the economy is doing well in Alberta right now, and they're not slowing down spending at all or even attempting to balance the budget. This has long been an important issue to Albertans, and seeing the premier then spend $84,000 for a 'trip' to the Olympics can easily rub someone the wrong way.

1) personally believe is that there isn't any political group in Alberta who could properly manage public money. Only smart decision right now is to jack the royalty rates up and invest the proceeds directly into a strategic industry (eg: technology). At least the PC's are spending.

2) never got the concept of a government "pissing away savings". Since when is a government ever in the business of saving money? If they are saving money, they shouldn't be taxing it. That said, the gov't should be spending the money they do raise on services for the citizens paying the taxes. It's how gov't works - which should be noted is DIFFERENT THEN PERSONAL OR CORPORATE FINANCES.

@eddybeers: yeah, you're still not using the word "largesse" right

[Azure]

Jacking the royalties does not work. Tweaking it might. Alberta already has a great revenue source with royalties, and if the NG prices weren't so bad, there wouldn't have been a deficit at all the past few years.

Spending a record amount of money without at least doing a comprehensive review to make sure it is being spent efficiently and effectively is the problem here. Can savings be made? No doubt. No attempt at that though. The Federal Government on the other hand did sit down and attempt to find a few billion to cut, which they did. And the country didn't fall apart. Yes I know they offset any savings with the ridiculous crime bill. No they won't get my vote again.

The US is another great example. Outside of the Clinton Administration, they have been on a serious upward trend in government spending for a long, long time. Massive, massive debt loads have been created by the baby boomers, and for what? Are Americans so much better off because the government create $15 trillion dollars in debt? Not even a bit. So obviously that suggests that the money wasn't spent efficiently or effectively. A lot of well-intentioned policies that didn't work out as planned. The war on drugs comes to mind.

That is a concern that we all should have. Nobody here is saving Alberta should cut like Klein did or how the Federal Liberals did in '94. All we're saying is that its annoying as hell when money is being spent at an ever increasing rate, and we honestly have no idea if its being spent effectively.

As for the savings, there is nothing wrong with putting a little away for a rainy day. Alberta is in a great position to do that. And quite honestly, you can't just allot billions upon billions for various agencies and services, and think that it will actually help. You need to identify areas that need funding, and fund them. If you want to make infrastructure improvements, you need to identify what and where, and budget for it.

You know, how a 'business' does it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Such a mind fata that the conservative posters are slamming the conservatives for waste and the liberal posters are defending it. Innovative way to oust the billion year conservatives, buy memberships, become one and change them from within.

Also, I think Nenshi flies coach.

What does go on at these trade mission things anyway? Will UK tourism officials now spend money on ads to travel to Alberta after talking to Christine Cusanelli?

An actual interesting article by an Alberta journalist would be to go on one of these trips and demonstrate the linkage of spending the $84k for $1B return. If that really is the type of return of these trips, then it is criminally irresponsible for all MLAs to actually spend one day in Alberta. Go to every country on earth, all the time. We can elect another government to take care of the crap back here.

No kidding. Redford spent $48,000 on a trip to China recently. If it does work, why isn't she going all over the place as much as possible?

The Nexxen deal will do more for tourism and money flowing into Alberta than any 6 day 'getaway' for the premier and her special buddies will ever will.

[Slava]

Well fotze the thing is I don't see it as waste. With the Europeans wanting to label our oil as dirty I think sending the premier is the right thing to do. It's well worth $84k to drive that message home.

Also we do have trade offices all over the world, because it drives business here. I'm not sure its $1B for every $84k spent, but its worthwhile.

[Azure]

Huge difference between a trade office and a trip to the Olympics. Are there even meetings scheduled with the various 'leaders' that she wants to meet with?

If it were $1B for everyone $1M even, every single government in the world would be sending their leaders there.

Obviously not even our Federal Government sees the need for it, as they're not funding any trips and any MP or government official that wants to attend has to do it on their own dime.

[Azure]

For whatever reason Nenshi is a lot more accountable to the people. You don't even have to agree with anything he does to see that, so its not surprising that he would identify what he is doing, how it will help, and how exactly the money will be spent.

The PCs on the other hand don't give a flying shat how they spend the money. 40 years in power does that for you. And like you said its a mind fata that people who would otherwise 'hate' them don't see a problem with that.

I honestly don't give a crap if its only $10,000. Explain how and why you're spending the money. Every single damn dollar should be tracked and explained.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Azure

Huge difference between a trade office and a trip to the Olympics. Are there even meetings scheduled with the various 'leaders' that she wants to meet with?

It seams this needs to be reposted, but the full press release has the itinerary for the trip and who the Premier and Ministers are meeting with.

http://alberta.ca/NewsFrame.cfm?Rele...A7E8D5355.html

[SebC]

Originally Posted by fotze

Such a mind fata that the conservative posters are slamming the conservatives for waste and the liberal posters are defending it. Innovative way to oust the billion year conservatives, buy memberships, become one and change them from within.

Spending. We can all agree that it's spending, but we haven't established that there is waste. And you give us too much credit... change from within is pretty much par for the course in a one-party state.

Originally Posted by Azure

No kidding. Redford spent $48,000 on a trip to China recently. If it does work, why isn't she going all over the place as much as possible?

The Nexxen deal will do more for tourism and money flowing into Alberta than any 6 day 'getaway' for the premier and her special buddies will ever will.

Does the Nexen deal even go ahead without this sort of thing?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle4436842/

When CNOOC Ltd. executive Fang Zhi arrived in Ottawa from Beijing in late March for meetings about the company’s recent oil sands investment, he had a larger prize in mind: Calgary-based Nexen Inc.

Shepherded by lobbyists from Hill & Knowlton, Mr. Fang met with deputy ministers from Natural Resources Canada, International Trade and Industry Canada, which houses the agency that reviews foreign investment.


In those sessions, he made it clear the CNOOC had plans for more ambitious acquisitions in Canada – without getting specific. While he did not receive an explicit green light, federal officials gave him encouragement that the country welcomes foreign money in the resource sector.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by llama64

No we should not.

The trip costs should, however, be under the scrutiny of people who actually know what the hell they are talking about and not just the general "joe" Albertan who literally has no clue what they are complaining about. Critics appear to be spewing party line without any critical thought whatsoever.

You forget who is funding this trip - the taxpayers. They have a right to know how the people they elected are spending thier money. Do you really think Redford is going to listen Smith or the taxpayers federation and have her costs examined? Somehow I doubt that's going to happen.

Until some facts about misuse of public funds (ie personal spending) are brought up this trip is in range of what I know of to be acceptable for an even of this magnitude. So yes, I questioned the costs and found them to be perfectly fine.

You questioned the costs and found them to be acceptable but haven't seen the breakdown of the costs yet? I guess there's need to look for any possibility of public funds being misused