Redford: Buyers Remorse?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Than you haven't been paying attention very well. Sarah Palin (of all people) infamously admitted to travelling to Canada to receive healthcare.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...canada-travel/



From that same article:

It's unfortunate that the opinion piece you posted has very little concrete data.

Of course people would choose to travel to get health care if "the quality of service was equal and the price was half or less". What a silly question to base your conclusions on.

It seems if you have dual citizenship, and lots of time, or are choosing elective surgery, you might choose Canadian health care because you don't have to pay out of pocket.

But for serious complications, or immediate service, the bottom line is that many Canadians choose to head south for service. Belinda Stronach. Danny Williams. Robert Bourassa.

The same is not true the other way.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

. Does spending $80k to generate millions in investments and tourism make sense though? Absolutely.

How do you figure that is the case?

We would love some accountability from our politicians. Sadly, we are likely to see no return on this trip.

[Tinordi]

Love the yokel-rage about the cost for a politician and their entourage to travel.

I booked a $200 ticket on Westjet and took the bus into town! So should the Premier!

Do you realize that these people work on schedules organized in 5 minute intervals? If flying business class allows the premier and her people to actually do 6 hours worth of work then it's worth it. That's why executives fly business. That's why they stay in relatively nice hotels, because they don't need to hassle with things that aren't important. It's the freaking cost of doing business. Grow up.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Get upset about business travel costs to London during Olympics...

...yawn at billions misspent on crime bill and fighter jets.

These are Alberta Conservatives, they only get excited about the real important things.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How do you figure that is the case?

We would love some accountability from our politicians. Sadly, we are likely to see no return on this trip.

Why do you say that? Today she has a speaking engagement at Canada Place for the Energy Lunch. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing we want our leaders doing, regardless of the party they were elected to lead? I think that in a time when the Europeans are threatening to label our resources as "dirty" that having our leader attend and present is probably a fantastic move.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Are you seriously suggesting that the Premier should fly coach?

Harper flies in a jet that costs 10,000 an hour to fly. A return flight to the Olympics would run about 180,000 dollars. I am pretty sure Redford cost less than that.

[Tinordi]

Moan about a political leader I don't support flying business class to London...


...dismiss criticisms of Defense Minister I do support for taking military helicopters to fishing lodges.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Moan about a political leader I don't support flying business class to London...


...dismiss criticisms of Defense Minister I do support for taking military helicopters to fishing lodges.

Now you are getting it. Conservatives who might be fakes (see Redford) are bad. Their largess like business class flights must be scrutinized. Real Conservatives (like Harper) are good. Their largess (billions in crime prevention to allow unreported crimes to be reported, billions in military fighter jets, tens of millions in Challenger flights, quadrupling of the government polling and PR budget, massive increases in salary for conservative political staffers, etc.) shall not be scrutinized for two reasons. One they are conservatives (real ones) and they get how valuable a dollar is to an individual taxpayer, they understand that a taxpayer can better spend a dollar than a politician and 2) they are not the liberals....grrrrr liberals, they are the worst, they just want to destroy Canada.

[Azure]

I find it pretty funny that the only thing that could make posters on here that would hate Redford's guts if the Liberals were a viable option now are making excuses for her because the Wildrose is the other option, and they are 'evil' and 'bad', while Redford and he brand of big government is now suddenly a 'good' or 'better' choice.

I don't like the crime bill, nor do I like what Redford is doing. Government has to be accountable, and not many are. Most do not even attempt to balance the budget, even in the good times. Most just spend more. And then the bad times come and everyone cuts back, and suddenly the government has to spend more to stabilize the economy. Well fine, except their finances are already a mess due to a lack of accountability in the 'good' years. Europe is a great example of this. The push for austerity is a bit late now. For Greece, Spain or any other country over there dealing with financial meltdowns to suddenly cut millions of public sector jobs, and billions more in spending wouldn't exactly have the desired effect. Sure, the government might be able to make their payments, but millions more would be unemployed, and it wouldn't exactly help the economy grow again.

A lot of people talk about the Canadian budget in '94/95, and how the Liberals cut so much to balance it again. IIRC, the GDP growth was 3%, or around there. A good time to cut. Likewise, the Conservatives didn't cut when the recession hit, and from all accounts held back on bigger cuts in the latest budget, even though they did trim it a bit. Probably the right thing to do although I believe they could have balanced the budget a bit faster. Now when we're slowly getting back to positive growth, they need to balance and pay down the debt load again.

Alberta is the same way. Cut in the good times, spend in the bad. Economies do not growth a positive rate ALL the time. There are downturns, and there are booms. And while Alberta might not be in a 'boom' right now, there certainly is positive growth. So now is the time to slowly cut back, balance the budget, and put some more money into savings for the next time a recession comes. Because if history has taught us anything, it is that September of 2008 can and will repeat again. The inability of the US government to do anything right basically ensures that.

Is Alberta attempting to balance the budget? Are they attempting to build up the funds they depleted from the Heritage Fund and other savings? I don't think they are. Not enough at least. Its just spend, spend, spend. The last budget was a bit beyond ridiculous.

So when the premier goes on a pleasure trip to London at an extremely high cost, people have the right to question that. It is their money she is using afterall.

The Federal Government on the other hand hasn't purchased any tickets, and our PM has no plans on attending. Anyone who wants to has to pay their own way. Won't make news, because unless Harper does something stupid or bad nobody cares, but its nice to see the government not spend millions on pleasure trips for an event that does not NEED their presence.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

I find it pretty funny that the only thing that could make posters on here that would hate Redford's guts if the Liberals were a viable option now are making excuses for her because the Wildrose is the other option, and they are 'evil' and 'bad', while Redford and he brand of big government is now suddenly a 'good' or 'better' choice.

While that isn't a proper setence, I'd say that's about as true as it is that if the Liberals were a viable option, those attacking Redford would be defending her.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

(stream of consciousness...)

So Redford going to London is a pleasure trip now? Do you have anything to back that up or is that just how you 'feel'?

[Barnission]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Are you seriously suggesting that the Premier should fly coach?

Oh, definitely. I want my premier or prime minister to travel coach on airplanes and travel Greyhound when a plane isn't needed. Because that's not an embarrassment at all.

Maybe next we should be suggesting they buy their suits from Value Village.

[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...

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by llama64

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

I was referring to government largess, basically bestowing gifts to those in political favour or pet projects of the government. I am pretty sure that higher salaries for conservative staffers, polling contracts to conservative pollstesr and money for pet projects like crime and military jets would fit the colloquial definition of government largess. It is an interesting word, with two spellings largess and largesse.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

While that isn't a proper setence, I'd say that's about as true as it is that if the Liberals were a viable option, those attacking Redford would be defending her.

I'm sure that would happen too.

[Azure]

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...

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.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Slava

- In Alberta these private schools are publicly funded. I think thats ridiculous, because if people want to put their kids in private schools and are willing to pay then they ought to pay the full amount. Regardless though, its hardly an argument for fiscal restraint.

I agree, private schools should be paid entirely by the users, just like private healthcare should be. Even with public funding it only costs the taxpayer a fraction of what the public system does. A fairer system where the user pays more of the costs.

Originally Posted by Slava

- Because of the competition for students (and of course money that comes them) there are examples where teachers have been pressured to inflate grades. This calls into question whether the methods are effective, regardless of how much they cost.

- The recent questions in Calgary which allege fraud or questionable financing make me wonder where the idea that private business is somehow perfectly efficient and transparent.

Because teachers in public schools never bump up grades to make their class look better?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fire

I agree, private schools should be paid entirely by the users, just like private healthcare should be. Even with public funding it only costs the taxpayer a fraction of what the public system does. A fairer system where the user pays more of the costs.

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?

[Fire]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Than you haven't been paying attention very well. Sarah Palin (of all people) infamously admitted to travelling to Canada to receive healthcare.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...canada-travel/



From that same article:

Unlike Canadians, the Americans actually have to pay for healthcare provided in Canada. Maybe if Canadians had to pay user fees for their healthcare the system would be in a much better place.

[bizaro86]

I'm pretty sure private school's get much less per student than the public system gets.