[News] UPD: Calgary City Council approves exploratory bid study for 2026 Olympics

[Senator Clay Davis]

Doesn't really matter anymore, NDP budget basically killed any shot of a bid. Whatever party Kenney is leading in 2019 will be running on severely cutting spending and of course cutting taxes. Just no money for the Olympics after that. Or more to the point, if you cut spending on everything and then throw a couple billion at the Olympics, there will be political hell to pay.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by polak

All of which were summer games.

That's true. He left out Sochi in particular. A phenomenal success!

[Erick Estrada]

Wow only 28% opposed. Just goes to show how much more vocal the minority is.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Doesn't really matter anymore, NDP budget basically killed any shot of a bid. Whatever party Kenney is leading in 2019 will be running on severely cutting spending and of course cutting taxes. Just no money for the Olympics after that. Or more to the point, if you cut spending on everything and then throw a couple billion at the Olympics, there will be political hell to pay.

Never underestimate the ability for the NDP to spend ;-)

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Wow only 28% opposed. Just goes to show how much more vocal the minority is.

Actually it's mostly the question is poorly phrased and leading. If you asked the question the way it should be asked...

"Would you be willing to have your property taxes and other taxes increased to host the Olympics"

....it would likely be 28% at best that approve. Ironically, you now have to root for the NDP and Nenshi to be in power in 2019 for it happen. Which is hilarious to me.

Originally Posted by Bunk

Never underestimate the ability for the NDP to spend ;-)

My point of course is they will be getting voted out and won't be around to make the debt $100 billion. Election is in 2019, same year the bid is due. And this poll was taken before the NDP budget came out, I suspect that 62% would be at least 10% lower after people saw the budget.

[Par]

Hopefully we get the Olympics, who cares about the costs, the government is going to piss away money anyways.

And hopefully no listens to that ****head from Boston.

[robaur]

Austerity measures simply do not work in democracies.

"Part of the answer is that politicians were catering to a public that doesn’t understand the rationale for deficit spending, that tends to think of the government budget via analogies with family finances."

https://www.theguardian.com/business...erity-delusion

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Wow only 28% opposed. Just goes to show how much more vocal the minority is.

I expect we'd see very different numbers if dollar figures were attached to the question. Especially if the politicians advocating for the Games were honest about where the money would be diverted from and what it would mean to other spending priorities.

Originally Posted by robaur

Austerity measures simply do not work in democracies.

Austerity is just a pejorative term for ensuring there's some correlation between government revenue and government spending. If it's a bogus argument, then why not simply cut taxes in half and double spending?

But I could very well be out of step with popular sentiment. I just read an article in the Globe and Mail revealing that three-quarters of car loans in Canada today are for terms of 7 years or longer, and that almost a third of Canadians who trade in vehicles today have negative equity in them, and add that debt to their loan for the new vehicle.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But I could very well be out of step with popular sentiment. I just read an article in the Globe and Mail revealing that three-quarters of car loans in Canada today are for terms of 7 years or longer, and that almost a third of Canadians who trade in vehicles today have negative equity in them, and add that debt to their loan for the new vehicle.

Ahaha...this is 100% why the olympics could happen. Enjoy life today; buy a big house and nice car and a great Olympic party. Paying for it is a problem for another day.

[robaur]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Austerity is just a pejorative term for ensuring there's some correlation between government revenue and government spending. If it's a bogus argument, then why not simply cut taxes in half and double spending?

But I could very well be out of step with popular sentiment. I just read an article in the Globe and Mail revealing that three-quarters of car loans in Canada today are for terms of 7 years or longer, and that almost a third of Canadians who trade in vehicles today have negative equity in them, and add that debt to their loan for the new vehicle.

My whole point being that family fiances vs state finances are two totally separate things. You can't manage family finances in the same method and principles that you would manage state finances. To do so would be ludicrous. There are times when a government has to run deficit budgets for the good of the long term of the state......Family finances don't have that sort of luxury to do so.

This is a very basic and simple argument. I can make it exponentially more complex but we don't need to go there.

Austerity hasn't worked anywhere.....I would recommend everyone giving a read to the article I linked above.....it's very long but it's very informative.

As for the Olympics, we don't have the luxury to hold them if they are not going to pay for themselves.....so they should only be considered if they are an economic benefit to Alberta's economy. Btw, the economic benefit goes way beyond the profit/loss of the olympics themselves....for those not thinking that way.

[Jay Random]

If the cost is anything like Sochi ($51 billion US), no conceivable economic benefit can repay it.

As for deficit financing: That's all very well (except that it isn't, and I, too, can make that exponentially more complex), as long as you are a national government that can issue its own currency. Alberta isn't. Our provincial debt has to be serviced out of tax revenues, and the bigger it gets, the more revenue it uses up. Don't be fooled by the present super-discounted interest rates into thinking that those debt-service charges will always be cheap.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by robaur

My whole point being that family fiances vs state finances are two totally separate things. You can't manage family finances in the same method and principles that you would manage state finances. To do so would be ludicrous. There are times when a government has to run deficit budgets for the good of the long term of the state......Family finances don't have that sort of luxury to do so.

This is a very basic and simple argument. I can make it exponentially more complex but we don't need to go there.

Austerity hasn't worked anywhere.....I would recommend everyone giving a read to the article I linked above.....it's very long but it's very informative.

As for the Olympics, we don't have the luxury to hold them if they are not going to pay for themselves.....so they should only be considered if they are an economic benefit to Alberta's economy. Btw, the economic benefit goes way beyond the profit/loss of the olympics themselves....for those not thinking that way.

I think the argument against Keynsian theory and anti-austerity is that the government is supposed to reign in spending and raise taxes when times are good - - - history shows that this rarely happens

So yes, austerity does not work in democracies - in good times or bad.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually it's mostly the question is poorly phrased and leading. If you asked the question the way it should be asked...

"Would you be willing to have your property taxes and other taxes increased to host the Olympics"

....it would likely be 28% at best that approve. Ironically, you now have to root for the NDP and Nenshi to be in power in 2019 for it happen. Which is hilarious to me.



My point of course is they will be getting voted out and won't be around to make the debt $100 billion. Election is in 2019, same year the bid is due. And this poll was taken before the NDP budget came out, I suspect that 62% would be at least 10% lower after people saw the budget.

This is only general sentiment. Mildly interesting, but not that important. Once the bid framework is put together, we have a better idea of costs, funding models, then it'll be more meaningful. For instance asking how would you feel about it raising your property taxes largely irrelevant, because it likely won't be funded through property taxes (as most capital costs are not and other costs like security are usually paid through Olympic specific revenue).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually it's mostly the question is poorly phrased and leading. If you asked the question the way it should be asked...

"Would you be willing to have your property taxes and other taxes increased to host the Olympics"

Did you really just whine about a leading question in one sentence then suggest a hilariously leading question as being "better" in the next?

C'mon dude. You are better than that.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Did you really just whine about a leading question in one sentence then suggest a hilariously leading question as being "better" in the next?

So, suggesting that the Olympics will cost money and that somebody will have to pay it, is a ‘hilariously leading question’?

[Senator Clay Davis]

I mean I was definitely being a little ironic, but my question of course at least acknowledges the realities of hosting the Olympics. People better be prepared for tax increases for hosting, as Cliff mentions we can't print money so debt (future tax increases) or new or increased taxes are the only ways to pay for this. Of course new taxes might be coming anyway if the NDP gets its way, which would of course kill their chances of not getting destroyed in 2019 anyway. There's a lot of politics to work out in this, and I just don't think it'll happen with the likely scenarios in 2019, plus a provincial and federal election. Just too difficult.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So, suggesting that the Olympics will cost money and that somebody will have to pay it, is a ‘hilariously leading question’?

yes it is

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

So, suggesting that the Olympics will cost money and that somebody will have to pay it, is a ‘hilariously leading question’?

The way he phrased it? Absolutely. And it's not even close, no matter how much you may hate the cost of hosting the Olympics.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The way he phrased it? Absolutely. And it's not even close, no matter how much you may hate the cost of hosting the Olympics.

Then what way would you phrase it so as not to be ‘hilariously leading’?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Then what way would you phrase it so as not to be ‘hilariously leading’?

Do you support Calgary bidding for the 2026 Olympic games. If yes, why? If no, why?

Done. Not leading in the slightest. Not difficult at all.