Elderly and disabled

I listen and hear ads about bullying and wear pink. Once again this government is bullying the poor, the elderly and disabled with their Pharmacare changes. This is as usual a lower mainland budget. Forget about the rest of the province we don't exist.

I cannot believe that anyone

I cannot believe that anyone could be hoodwinked into believing that this budget was good. Even watching Carole Taylor on the screen before the press, she doesn't believe in it either. Question; how much is it going to cost to process all those rebate cheques to every B.C.er in June? Remember when Ralphie did the same thing a number of years ago in Alberta and it was a disaster in processing.

Gateway Air Quality Claims Are Running On Empty

Carole Taylor continues to tow the party falsehood that Gateway will reduce emissions but they have no evidence to support such a claim. Environment Canada and Health Canada documents submitted to the Environmental Assessment Office for the Port Mann twinning identify this deficiency quite clearly. Health Canada described Gateway air quality studies as "misdirected", "inappropriate" and "misleading". See it for yourself, here is a backgrounder with links to original documents: http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/epic_project_home_247.html

Gateway Air Quality Claims Are Running On Empty

Carole Taylor continues to tow the party falsehood that Gateway will reduce emissions but they have no evidence to support such a claim. Environment Canada and Health Canada documents submitted to the Environmental Assessment Office for the Port Mann twinning identify this deficiency quite clearly. Health Canada described Gateway air quality studies as "misdirected", "inappropriate" and "misleading". See it for yourself, here is a backgrounder with links to original documents: http://www.cleanairradio.ca/Reports/LRC_GatewayRunningonEmpty_Feb1108.pdf

'No increase in money for

'No increase in money for education, education not being something we need I guess in the Liberal future.'
not sure which budget speech you saw, but they committed to increasing per-student funding every year for the next three. i guess i should expect this kind of rhetoric from the readers of such a biased media outlet.

Inside Info?

If anyone has inside information you'd like to leak re our government, the following might be an option - if the US gov't doesn't shut it down.

Here's a NY Times article about it;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20wiki.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

and the backdoor to Wikileaks
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks

We could use a Canadian version ...

Wikileaks

seems there already is a Canadian version ...

http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Category:Canada

simonfraser

Let's see, a $48 million increase per year on a total education budget of just over 5 billion dollar budget is less than a 1% increase.

Inflation is running just over 2%. If you haven't heard of inflation you can read about what it is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

I can see why you'd think $48 million a year was a huge increase when your only source for math is your favourite political party.

Sightline's take

BC's carbon tax rocks, we Sightline folks say. No one else is even close:

Read the post here:

Math!? Yuck!!

Yes Frank, every now again we see a shinning example of our education system in action like simonfraser here. I'm not sure why we don't just close the schools completely and have children just watch TV and memorize the propaganda they air. It explains why these youths can't perform or understand simple math equations. Like budgets or compound interest and doubling time, and that really far out concept of exponential growth! If they just taught some simple life skills in school then maybe these next generations could discover independant thought. Of course perhaps we should applaud the fact he has found this "biased rhetorical media outlet" all by himself. More likely, with his skill set and lack of awarness, a paid media monitor. Just do as your told son, don't think....

A general question: I was reading a link provided by G West (Kunstler) and it mentioned Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and it sounds as if they could be a trigger to more economic failure, can anyone elaborate?

frank; i guess if you have

frank; i guess if you have access to money trees like you and your ndp buddies have $48 million a year doesn't seem to be a lot of money, but in the real world it's a substantial amount. i know i'm probably pissing in the wind trying to convince the left of such a concept but i can't help but think that there must still be a little bit of hope for you guys.

simonfraser

Aw nuts, you mean we can't use Ms Taylor's money tree? You know, this one referenced by the Vancouver Sun :

clubofrome

You might want to read Paul Krugman in the NY Times. The article is called "A Crises of Faith"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15krugman.html

"Nemesis-Rousseau"

I'm not going to out you, I actually like having you around and enjoy arguing with you even if I'm positive you're here only on a media-monitoring contract.

But you need to change your tell-tale habits or "they" will ban you again.

Thanks Frank

I found one that is a little more specific...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/business/17swap.php

Budd

Are you STILL pushing that freeways are green mantra?

I don't see why such silliness needs anyone's imprimatur - it's quite obvious from countless examples the world over that more and wider roads = more and heavier traffic.

It's been true everywhere else, why would the Lower Mainland be the exception?

I've never quite understood what your problem is with good reliable and affordable mass transit.

You and the wife can still come into Vancouver in the SUV for the evening...occasionally!

It's easy being green. Just get a good wardrobe department.

And for Best Performance by those posing as "environmentalists":

Wait....it's a tie!

The Sierra Club.... and the David Suzuki Foundation.

CCPA didn't come across all that well either Lynn

I heard Marc Lee on Newsworld this afternoon and he was basically taking the line that it's a good start.

Pity the poor fella driving a panel van to work...a fill up was more than a hundred bucks last night, with the price of oil well over a hundred dollars/bbl + Campbell's little shell game (to help pay for the Olympic cost overruns) I doubt if the hundred buck bribe is going to be a very big deal. Won't even cover another tank full.

What kind of 'choices' does someone in that position have?

Frank: Quote:The budget

Frank:

Do you have a reference for this? I'd like to read more. I've long been fascinated by accounting games played by our provincial government.

Running on empty

Yup, it has to be about what really works. About real change. Real choices. The old argument. ;-)

I agree completely with The brain that this is nothing more than a consumption tax on gas. And in rural areas where emergency services, educational services, senior care etc. have been closed or moved out of town by this government - think of the distances that must now be travelled by so many. Choices? LOL

Also unless there is monitoring and complete public disclosure of where and how exactly our tax money is being spent - then nothing is really revenue neutral. It's just another sly game of hide and seek.

The record of this government when it comes to openness and transparency - FOI requests, public disclosure, has been abysmal at best. Without the all-important details, without the money trail, revenue neutral is meaningless.

No doubt the carbon tax will benefit the select few who have always benefited from the policies of this government.

A challenge

to any upcoming contract lawyers or students to bring a breach of contract against the government for putting us in debt when they can borrow money for infrastructure and health care and schools and teachers and what ever else that is for the public good from the Bank of Canada at little or no interest. That is in The BNA act so I think by them borrowing fom private banks and institutions we can claim breach of contract and and show real harm in the form of interest payment that are not necessary for the running of the province.

Budd Campbell: You're back,

Budd Campbell:

You're back, eh?

No. Environment Canada says this:

http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/p247/1199903039857_087b25cb4629463d8ffcee1a6c0d6a0e.pdf

It's not clear to the folks at Environment Canada how the Ministry got their numbers, and what their sensitivities are. So, as they were unsure what methodology the Ministry was using, it's hard for them to propose an alternative or to critique, isn't it? And just because Environment Canada did not propose a traffic model does not mean that they don't know any good ones. Perhaps you should email Kristie Trainor, the Environment Canada assessment officer, and ask her what models they use.

The only thing green about this...

budget is the grass that will grow if you liberally spread the essence of the budget on your front lawn

"A long term plan"

Sometimes a poster makes my blood boil. Bikerbill, if I read the post correctly, states " i.e. benefits everybody, but in this case especially the less well off. This is exactly what effective policy should do."

I am confused. Doesn't $100 buy the same amount of goods (or services) for the rich or for the "less well off"? I see an exactly equal benefit.

However, I might argue, it buys much more for the "more well off". The "less well off" cannot afford a hybrid car and are stuck with less fuel efficent, most likely older vehicle. I am also, sure the "less well off" have already trimmed expenses in terms of "carbon savings" as far as possible, and are wearing extra sweaters.

The income tax cut, really benefits the
rich. Other taxes or levies call them user fees, disproportionately harm the "less well off". And in once beautiful BC (now the "greatest place on earth") that is exactly what is happening!

Yes the $100 is "cheap trickery" as the real point of the "carbon tax" is not discussed. Carbon is life. If you control carbon, you control life. It is a bureaucrat's dream. A scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. A very regressive socialist measure. As Taylor says "a long term plan".

jimbob

Calm down.

Welfare rates for employable singles and single parents will also increase by $50 a month.

etc.
These aren't the rich.

and

$104-million of extra funding will go to reduce homelessness over four years.

An additional $78-million over four years to allow emergency shelters to stay open 24 hours a day.

what happened to common sense?

It would make more sense to help homeowners with insulating their homes, that would reduce fuelconsumption! Increasing the price will only make it more expensive, as we do need heat regardless of the cost!

BC Hydro had a "Powersmart" program at one time, and it offered reduced rates provided the home was properly inspected and updated to meet certain standards; now that made sense!

Much the same applies to the gasoline tax, we have already reduced pleasure driving as much as is reasonable, because of the rising costs, another 2 cents make no difference!

Put pressure on manufacturers to make more fuel-effecient vehicles,and to stop the horsepower race they are engaging in now.

budgeting is one thing, rman

Budgeting is one thing, rman;
actually taking action, doing the appropriate work is quite another.

I'll believe it when I see it, and even then, the pain and suffering they have allowed/caused is beyond redemption.

After all, they budgeted $250,000,000 for homelessness last year and spent only $650,000 on homelessness and $2,000,000 on a place for the families of burn victims to stay while the burn victims are in care. Though a laudible act, those people are not homeless and should have been housed out of health dollars.

There's been:
No end of money for convention centre over-runs; it must be close to half a billion by now. No end of huge give-aways to accounting or information-tracking firms. I.E.: BC Rail sale, BC Med files, BC public schools files through the ESIS contract. $100+ million for a bloody sliding centre. No end of contracts for Bombardier when LRT makes more sense. No end of sell off of public assets/crown corporations to companies that see them as a bargain! No end of propping up the oil and gas industry!

Does the Premier still own land up Whistler way? Has all of this activity for the Olympics made him lot's richer?

sharing

That's a long way out there. If you really mean that I guess there's no point in even trying. By the way; check those figures please.

Democracy and leadership deficit

In my opinion this is stupid and manipulative:

The tax will raise $1 billion over two years. To make it "revenue neutral" the government has NOT chosen to follow Quebec's lead of spending the money on incentives to make green choices. Instead it will write a $100 cheque for every British Columbian and cut income taxes for individuals, corporations and small businesses.

So just prior to the May 12, 2009 election can we expect to see another $100 cheque cut??

Why is this another example of a democracy deficit? - because it was obstensibly created in a non-transparent manner behind closed doors, with no to little participation from those most impacted. We all will paying a very high cost for only a marginal reduction in GH gas emissions, and the $100 cheque for every British Columbia, points to yet another issue, who should decide what will be done with the carbon tax money collected, and what criterica can one establish to determine a wiser, more socially, environmentally beneficial use of that money: such as $ to move fish farms to close containment, money to reduce medical premiums, monies to reduce post-secondary tuition, more money to working men and women, more money to solve social problems such as addictions, homelessness, poverty? The deficit --is a democracy deficit? The solution is to design incrementally a movement towards greater participative budgeting..as I see it anyway.

Realisticman

Look at the actual budget. The $100 goes to evryone (one time),and, yes, I agree the low income folks get an extra $25 per quarter. However, user fees/other taxes up, and single 70k earner $201 tax cut and 30k single parent(1 kid) $3 tax cut(oops, I mean $2)+ $130 credit. (See budget backgrounder, bc government website)
Who wins? Who can most afford the tax on just living?

2nd year 70k $201, 30k $2 + $130 credit

Hey, kid, they're eating it(fat salary politicians and bureaucrats), you pay for it!

Clubofrome

The Automatic Earth - financials

The Oil Drum - peak oilers

Be careful you don't get sucked in to these sites!

For the dullard Cycling Commuter

But they don't. Thats the point, you pompous putz. Energy consumption continues to go up in this province. Taxes on consumption, while preferred, do nothing to target specific spending on energy efficiency. They generate revenue, nothing more. GST for example, is a tax on consumption. Do people stop consuming goods because a GST is applied? And is the GST going towards debt reduction? Not when governments run deficits they don't and we'll run one this year.

Just because a provincial government calls a tax on gas consumption a carbon tax does not make it so. If it was a 40 cent a litre tax, this would most definitely have an impact on gas consumption, but 2.5 cents a litre will have no impact.

Think people! What have Canadians been calling federal taxes on gas on the pump all this time before Campbells spin? Its a sham and only a dullard like Cycling Commuter would endorse a sham as something else other than what it is.

Takes one to know one, they say...

Is it Environment Canada's position or right to dictate government policy? Its not like their words stopped development.

For what its worth, make cars smaller. Downsize veichles to less than a thousand pounds except for trucks and our existing infrastructure will work just fine. This can easily be done with Mileage, manufacturing and import regulations of cars and trucks but since our governments love to kiss oil corps to encourage energy and commodity consumption through a lack of regulations on imports and manufacturers, we see the congestion we are seeing now.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/tata-nano-the-worlds-cheapest-car/?hp

http://www.smartusa.com/smart-car-fortwo.aspx

And my personal favorite!

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/mar2007/bw20070319_949435.htm

more on derivatives for you club

These instruments are meant to cover losses to banks and bondholders when companies fail to pay their debts.

The market for these securities is enormous. Since 2000, it has ballooned from $900 billion to more than $45.5 trillion — nearly twice the size of the entire United States stock market.
Like the now-distressed market for subprime mortgage securities, the credit default swap market is unregulated. There is a least a chance that further crises in these markets could set off a chain reaction of losses at financial institutions, making it even harder for borrowers to get loans that grease economic activity.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a U.S. banking regulator recently warned that a significant increase in trading in swaps during the third quarter of last year "put a strain on processing systems" used by banks to handle these trades and make sure they match up.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/17/business/17SWAP_1_lg.gif

If you want more information about these instruments, commonly called ‘derivatives’, you can find it here:

http://www.thomson.com/content/financial/brand_overviews/Thomson_Proprietary_Research

More Multicoloured

The Campbell government won't be green until we switch over to using US Currency. Until then it will remain "multicoloured" like Canadian Currency.

For Our Man Kevin or Luke

Quote:

" David Suzuki Foundation. "It's a landmark decision in North America as far as governments taking strong action on climate change."

Can't argue with them.

I guess not Kev/Luke, why argue with them if they are helping you with your second job - media manipulation? I'm about 110% convinced that you COULD (and would) argue with them if they weren't echoing the Campbell party line.

'For what its worth, make

'For what its worth, make cars smaller. Downsize veichles to less than a thousand pounds except for trucks and our existing infrastructure will work just fine.' great idea brain! or how about if we manufacture cars and trucks that don't need an energy source? then all our problems will be solved and we can all live happily ever after!

SLOGANS AND CLICHES FROM G West

G West:

Are you STILL pushing that freeways are green mantra?

I don't see why such silliness needs anyone's imprimatur - it's quite obvious from countless examples the world over that more and wider roads = more and heavier traffic.

It's been true everywhere else, why would the Lower Mainland be the exception?

As I am sure you know, G West, ... in fact it's painfully obvious that you know only too well, ... cliches and slogans serve as a substitute for real thought in most political chattering sessions, whether in person or online. I have heard this mantra many times, from all kinds of "greenie" poseurs, most of whom haven't been outdoors in living memory. It reminds me of a couple of examples.

At a GVRD meeting in Maple Ridge one of the local nuts said she had just been to Europe and "everyone was on bicycles going everywhere!" When I asked her how far they were going by bike, she replied "Oh, ... I don't know, ... but twenty minutes." Obviously this fool had no idea what was going on and still doesn't.

A worse example is the City of Vancouver Engineering Dept. One of their staff lunatics once tried to tell me that if the City put in more extended/advanced greens and left turn bays that people would just make more left turns, because, as an old Kevin Costner flic tells us, "If you build it they will come". We are paying these jerk-offs professional salaries!

I've never quite understood what your problem is with good reliable and affordable mass transit.

I am a regular West Coast Express rider at a cost of $180 per month. I want to see that service expanded and sped up. My fear is that if the downtown transit advocates (eg Eric Doherty) get their way, we'll be forced to accept a much slower LRT system and the Express will be cancelled. Doherty is on record saying that commuter rail causes urban sprawl. That's because his employer, SPEC, is nothing but a cheesy front organization for wealthy Westside property owners. That's where their offices are, that's where their controlling contributors are, and that's who they represent. Their laughable pretense to being spokepersons for the environment is purely marketing, a cover story and nothing else.

You and the wife can still come into Vancouver in the SUV for the evening...occasionally!

I drive a 1988 Jeep Cherokee, my wife drives a 2005 Jetta TDI that burns a mere 4.7 litres per 100 kms on the highway. We take her car into town, mine on winter trips up-country. What do you drive, G West?

ENVIRONMENT CANADA HAS NOTHING ON OFFER

And just because Environment Canada did not propose a traffic model does not mean that they don't know any good ones. Perhaps you should email Kristie Trainor, the Environment Canada assessment officer, and ask her what models they use.

As you well know, Jimmy Laroux, If Environment Canada had an alternative modelling procedure in mind they would have mentioned it. They didn't and they don't.

I checked with the UofT Sustainable Transporation group and they said no Canadian city has developed a method of projecting land use changes as a function of transportation projects. Some in the US are apparently trying to do this, but they're not there yet.

COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENT CANADA

Is it Environment Canada's position or right to dictate government policy? Its not like their words stopped development.

In the harmonized federal-provincial environmental assessment process it's part of the procedure for interested agencies such as EnvCda, to submit comments on what the proponents have put forward. I don't have a problem with that.

However, I do think it's perfectly silly for critics of Gateway to pretend that EnvCda has produced a significant criticism of MOTH/Gateway's modelling. On the contrary, I think their critique is pretty perfunctory and insubstantial. They had no remedies to offer, no solutions, just a repetition of learned sounding but essentially throw-away lines put forward by the anti-Gateway cottage industry that employs half of the political bloggers in the Lower Mainland, ... when they're not busy drinking their fair-trade, no-fat, decaf, organic lattes that is.

jimmy_laroux

Once you get clear of the thicket of climate change initiatives in the Liberal government's "balanced" budget, you can see plainly that the rate of spending will exceed the growth in revenue.

That's right. Total government revenue, excluding Crown corporaton income, is expected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.8 per cent over the next three years, while total expenses are forecast to rise by an average of three per cent.

Only through the magic of public sector accounting can governments spend money faster than they bring it in and call the result balanced.

The way our government makes up the difference, of course, is by taking on more debt. The budget sees total provincial debt climbing from $37.7 billion in 2008-09 to $42.5 billion in 2010-11, a reality gap of $4.8 billion and an increase of $7.5 billion from the forecast in last year's budget.

The link to the whole article is here
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=0214b873-cd4b-41c2-90d6-b7c2584527d8

Miro Cernetig in the Sun

The link is here
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=c07301f7-3e5e-4a63-9917-2c739c337710

From a Vancouver Sun editorial, I thought it was funny how they said debt was increasing and our budget is balanced

Looking ahead, however, there is cause for concern. Total debt is increasing by $7.5 billion in the next three years, a pace of growth that may not be sustainable if and when the provincial economy cools. Indeed, the U.S. economy is headed south and, if B.C. follows it down, the budget's forecast allowance and contingency funds may not provide enough of a cushion.

I guess the Sun's editors couldn't bring themselves to actually question how the budget could be called balanced.

Budd Campbell

Should the opportunity arise, ask that nut from Maple Ridge if she rode "her" bicycle during the flight over, and back from Europe in order to cut down on fuel usage, and to minimize the pollution the plane was spewing out into the atmosphere. This is your typical holy than thou wing nut, they never look inwards at their own fallacy, only out ward to others. This reminded me of a story a friend told me, while on a guided tour of an 800 year old castle, I believe he said in Scotland. This old castle was near a large modern airport. As the guided group were down in the dungeon room, amongst all the torturing tools, a large plane was taking off and passing over the castle, just as the tour guide was attempting to explain all the purposes of the dungeon room,of course he could not be heard, untill after the plane had passed and the noise had ceased,at which point, a nut turned around and stated to my friend. "Why on earth would they have been so stupid, as to built this castle so close to an airport?

Sweet, thanks Frank!

Sweet, thanks Frank!

Budd Campbell: Quote:As you

Budd Campbell:

I have no idea what Environment Canada knows and what it does not know. I do not work there. Do you? Unless you do, you are talking out of your hat.

BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T VERY SENSITIVE IN THOSE DAYS

"Why on earth would they have been so stupid, as to built this castle so close to an airport?"

I guess the people who built the castle, complete with dungeon and torture facilities, weren't sensitive enough to be part of the no-fat, decaf, organic latte crowd. They probably didn't understand the urbanista wisdom of such luminaries as Stephen Rees and Gordon Price.

I felt like asking the nut at the Maple Ridge consultation how she got to that nite's meeting. You could tell from one look that she hadn't ridden a bike anywhere in a very long time.

There were also a couple of college kids there, plainly offspring of the property owning class and apparently enrolled in some Geog101 type course, talking all the sustainable talk and the peak oil talk too. But, ... they had to admit they can't ride their bikes anywhere either, because it's just too dangerous, the drivers in Maple Ridge are so rude and crude. So they will have to keep on generating GHG's in the cars they have borrowed from Mum and Dad for a while yet. The Metro Vancouver planning types actually accepted all this rubbish and more as citizen input.

READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH jimmy_laroux

"I have no idea what Environment Canada knows and what it does not know. I do not work there. Do you? Unless you do, you are talking out of your hat."

Environment Canada needs to maintain a certain degree of political support among the Vancouver Westside environmental NGO community, its leaders, disciples and devotees and donors, and most of all, its careerist employees. It's no coincidence that their report has been warmly welcomed and noisily celebrated by that community.

They didn't recommend to Gateway any procedure that would fill the gaps they have complained about. What should Gateway do? Keep trying over and over again till they get it right? What would "right" be? I agree that using the same land-use scenario for both the with and without Gateway scenarios is, as the UofT told me, "problematic".

But what's even more problematic is finding two (or more) different land use scenarios that are credible and which would be accepted as credible by all the stakeholders and commentators. Here is what I said earlier:

"I checked with the UofT Sustainable Transporation group and they said no Canadian city has developed a method of projecting land use changes as a function of transportation projects. Some in the US are apparently trying to do this, but they're not there yet."

Note that I checked with published academics whose intellectual standing is undisputed, but who are not attached to the Vancouver political scene.

Quote:Total government

True, but Health Care is seeing a 6%increase (7% last year). Health Care represents around 42% of the total budget, (from 33% around 20 years ago), and is expected to reach 50% by 2013.

That's where the big problem arises in terms of sustainability - and it's an issue that is always "top of the mind" for voters.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=84db696c-9388-4467-af1a-4567ba3a44ad

Ya have to remember, that BC also had cumulative budget surpluses over the past four years of ~$13 billion. Some of that was utilized to reduce existing taxpayer-supported debt while another portion was utilized for infrastructure (as opposed to salaries and operations - different thing in my books).

Another important factor is the debt/GDP ratio, whereby BC's currently stands at around 14.5%(?), while Ontario's is at around 19.2%, and Quebec's is somewhere in the 30 range, the last time I reviewed the figures.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/business/15777827.html

Remember, if BC Hydro decided to construct the Site C dam, overall BC debt would increase by it's estimated $5 - 6 billion cost.

In any event, the Liberals first two budgets were mired in annual operatintg deficits as a result of their ill-conceived "tax cuts", which also resulted in a corresponding reduction and cutbacks in government services.

Luke Skywalker

That's where the big problem arises in terms of sustainability - and it's an issue that is always "top of the mind" for voters.

Its not a real stat in the sense that tax rates rise and fall so comparing a cost to a changing revenue stream doesn't really make sense. Also, other programs can be cut making healthcare magically seem to consume a greater percentage of the budget. When you compare it to the overall economy healthcare spending has not increased, something Carol Taylor said she didn't believe in doing.

There was an article on it here on the Tyee quite awhile back. From Will McMartin I believe.

See, Carol Taylor wants to compare debt to GDP but not healthcare spending to GDP.

Anyway, Carol Taylor is already counting our debt to GDP ratio based on 177,000 people that haven't yet decided to move to BC.

Liberals and the rapidly rising debt...

Luke Skywalker:

What is a surplus if not provincial income minus expenses? Infrastructure is an expense, right? Calling this 13 billion $ a "surplus" seems disingenuous.

It's 18.4% in the Sun article.

I find the debt/GDP ratio kind of silly. GDP is a short term measure of the health of the economy, whereas debt is cumulative.

BC has begun amortizing the cost of capital projects since they implemented GAAP. This gives an artificially low (to put it mildly) picture of the debt as compared to numbers before 2002 when GAAP was implemented.

BC hides considerable debt by using Public-Private Partnerships. This allows debt to be renamed as "contractual obligations". From the Sun, no less:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=be4c05c2-444b-4624-afbb-fb98ac8b799e

BC owes a total of 55 billion $ in "contractual obligations" as of 2007, up from 34 billion $ in 2006.

Now that's creative accounting!

Budd Campbell: Quote:They

Budd Campbell:

It's really very simple. Disclose the mthod they used for getting those numbers. This was what Environment Canada was asking about. Did they even attempt to take land use changes or induced demand into account? If they did not even try to account for these effect, then their numbers are meaningless.

Keep trying over and over again till they get it right? What would "right" be? I agree that using the same land-use scenario for both the with and without Gateway scenarios is, as the UofT told me, "problematic".

I understand that traffic modelling is difficult. As with the physical sciences, it's not possible to tell if a model produces the "correct" answer. But it's often easy to tell if an answer is wrong. It's a subtle point, but an important one.

Budd Campbell: Quote:They

Budd Campbell:

It's really very simple. Disclose the mthod they used for getting those numbers. This was what Environment Canada was asking about. Did they even attempt to take land use changes or induced demand into account? If they did not even try to account for these effect, then their numbers are meaningless.

I understand that traffic modelling is difficult. As with the physical sciences, it's not possible to tell if a model produces the "correct" answer. But it's often easy to tell if an answer is wrong. It's a subtle point, but an important one.

Hi Tyee Moderator, Could

Hi Tyee Moderator,

Could you remove my second-to-last post as well as this one?

Throw the bums out

Lies and bad ideas thats the Fiberal record I don't see much deviation from that course here.

Budd

The somewhat threadbare nature of your argument is only accentuated by the name calling and bad manners.

You tell me where the construction of a freeway has led to less traffic?

I'm pleased you use the train.

Why do you still drive that Cherokee though?

I drive a 4 cylinder Toyota. It happens to be 20 years old (gets about the same result as your wife's Jetta) - I bought it 2 years ago and I've put a total of 9000k on it since then - Next question.

And btw, I'm no 'greenie'!

What I can't understand is why you're so angry - surely the object of this exercise is some kind of consensus. Generally you seem like a sensible fellow and anyone that Terry Glavin hates can't be all bad.

Why try to argue black is white?

Building more and wider roads and freeways is NOT going to improve the situation - ever!

And I don't need to refer to any experts - compromised or otherwise - to know that.

I think the BC Liberals

I think the BC Liberals should change their name to the 'Big Business' party. This 'green' smokescreen is downright offensive.

Creative Accounting 140A

I like this from Jimmy:

At least them Accenture guys aren't slacking on the job, eh? I'm sure they share lots of tips with Campbell and Associates - Resource Dispersal Ltd.

In today's amoral corporate jungle, scum like Kenny "Boy" Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, and Conrad Black are model lions of commerce whose only sins were getting caught. Ken Lay's troubles prove that even impeccable connections aren't enough to protect you if you push the boundaries far enough. However if you are well connected AND a winner in the Lucky Sperm Lottery, you can apparently even essentially rob banks (with a fountain pen, like the Woody Guthrie song) with impunity. $1.6 Billion disappeared from Silverado Savings under the guidance of Neil Bush, but he found himself neither homeless and panhandling nor incarcerated.

In Germany today, many are starting to question why it is appropriate for CEO's to earn 200-300 times the income of highly skilled workers, when the ratio was more like 15 to 1 not very long ago. People are particularly curious as to why an executive whose claim to fame is the destruction of Daimler-Chrysler is justified in expecting and accepting this level of compensation.

Jimmy... you've made some

Jimmy... you've made some good points but...

Cumulative annual surpluses of ~$13 billion... remember at the end of each fiscal year, IIRC, 1/3 has been utilized to pay off maturing government bonds or debt... 1/3 toward infrastruture needs(remember the "fixed-asset" v. forgone "service" expenditure scenario)and 1/3 to non-recurring programs.(IIRC)

It's actually 14.1% in fiscal 2007/2008 (BC Minisry of Finance website). In any event, the major credit rating agencies, Standard & Poors, Moody's, DBRS, regard that figure as instrumental in BC obtaining a Triple A credit rating, the only province besides Alberta.

As for health of the economy, the BC Central Credit Union now prognosticates that BC's economy, between 2008 and 2012 will experience the strongest level of growth since 1985.

Admittedly, I was somewhat surprised!

http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id26480

simonfraser

"First they'll ignore you. Then they'll laugh at you. Then they'll fight you. Then you'll win." - Ghandi

Take a look at what people are driving in Europe. Take a look at their infrastructure... and then get back to us about how so called progressive U.S. auto manufacturers and legistlators are, and how "efficient" North Americans are with transportation in comparision. My guess is that when you do, you'll go back to ignoring. Large egos will often do anything to keep from being humiliated, including being disengaged.

More stuff to make the "greens" happy.

Garth, I'm amazed that you've just confessed to owning a 20-yr-old car. When Campbell's road Gestapo is turned loose, as promised, you've just guaranteed that that every nut and bolt in it is going to be inspected minutely, and you'll be paying to have the whole works towed away then and there.

Fluff

The only reason for the $100 cheque and personal income tax cuts, is a smoke-and-mirror diversion for the corporate tax cuts. Nothing more and nothing less.

Oh, and it will play very well for next year's election rhetoric..........

More debt...

Luke Skywalker:

Frank posted this link above:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=0214b873-cd4b-41c2-90d6-b7c2584527d8

According to the author, Harvey Enchin, 14.1% is the ratio of "taxpayer-supported" debt to GDP, but this

So the "taxpayer-supported" + Crown corporation debt to GDP ratio is 18.4%. At least for the debt we call debt, and not the 55 billion $ in debt we call "contractual obligations" (and thus don't include in the debt-to-GDP ratio).

From dictionary.com:

So why are "infrastruture needs" not considered expenses and the surplus decremented by this amount? Same with "non-recurring programs"? The way the government uses the word "surplus" does not agree with the dictionary definition. And I think that when people hear the word "surplus" they think of surplus in a literal, dictionary sense. It's disingenuous at best.

Y'see Jimmy

Why some people might think Luke is a media monitor...he has the facts - but none of the analysis and little of the understanding necessary to do anything but cheer lead. Not that I’d ever suggest such a thing..

I'd like to know what happened to the promise Campbell made in the government service plan for 2005/06 that all ministries would only purchase new hybrid vehicles?

Now I know they have a lot of Toyota Prius’ vehicles in the car pool these days but
I see many new provincial vehicles tooling around all the time and lots of them aren’t shiny new hybrids: in fact, the ministry of highways’ yellow pickups are also shiny and new but they sure aren’t running on electricity.

Like everything else Gordon Campbell says, it’s all talk – and no action; all promises and no carry through.

After all, the BC New Car Dealers’ Association probably has Gordon’s private number…

private number

Would that be Jimmy Pattison, G West? I think he has had the numbers of the Premiers since Bill Bennet. Speaking of Bill Bennet, whatever happened to the Domtar shares scandal and Bill Bennet? Reminds me of the BC Rail deal, nothing much ever being published in the MSM.

I believe that the Liberals can certainly be doing a better job of recycling than they have been. After all, many of them recycled themselves with a shiney new Liberal paint job after the bags-full-o'-cash Socred Corporation self-destructed under VanderZalm.

I am so disappointed in this government. To me, they are worse than I ever dreamed possible. Now I truly know how Hitler and Mussolini were able to rise to power.

BC has nothing on the Americans. We have shown that we can elect home-grown incompetents even more easily than they have to the south. Though I may have missed something, I don't think that George Bush nor Gordon (leaky Condo) Campbell were successful as businessmen in the corporate world. We see that both have been destroying the environment, not maintaining infrastructure, selling off government assets, making public education worse and increasing misery for their people.

It has been nearly 20 years since the Berlin Wall came down. With the end of the Cold War, we have had 20 years to show the world how to be compassionate and inventive. Instead, we have elected leaders who have shown the world full-scale promotion of corporate greed at the expense of the electorate. These "green" carbon taxes will prove to be just another ruse to move more cash into the pockets of the wealthy. They will do very little to actually change things for the better for the planet because we are still escalating the use of cars and trucks instead of improving existing (and building new) railways. The environmental cheerleaders for the Carbon Tax have not been reading the fine print, nor have they been looking at BC's big socio-environmental picture.

Try Paul Taylor sharing

And a couple of guys who used to run a firm called Pilot House...

No doubt Jimmy has a lot of proxy votes whenever the new car dealers take a poll on anything though.

GWest

Earlier you wrote:

A couple of weeks ago weren't you advocating $3 a litre, or more? What's the catastrophy about a few cents?

Jeff Simpson in Friday's Globe thinks that this budget is the best thing since Medicare!

As it happens

As it happens, the impact of that comment was meant, quite obviously, to address the disconnect between a (one-time) payback of $100 to an individual who has to pay more than that for one tank of gas...GET IT?
It ain’t revenue neutral.

I do advocate a $3/litre gas policy...but I advocate a lot of other things - that don't include using gas tax to finance the Olympics - which is what's going to happen, in my view.

You know perfectly well that my approach to turning this province, this country and the economy into a fair one also involves the end of the tax holidays the upper crust have enjoyed for the last 30 - 35 years.

Start with a policy where everyone pays payroll taxes on ALL their income (not just the first 70G or so); eliminate all the special deals for investors, real estate speculators and friends of the Premier; start building real and effective mass transit that works for people and find ways (marked gas if necessary) to help farmers and businessmen who would be too hard hit by $3 gas.
I also like Frank’s idea of a plan to get people to convert to Natural Gas or propane and to do it through small local garages. I’d rather see the existing stock of motor vehicles cleaned up than give rewards to people to buy new ones - each of which create an enormous impact on the environment in their creation.

Just for a start.

I find your disingenuousness charming, but of tiresome.
As an old friend of mine used to say when someone came up with a particularly facile remark: ‘You’re a bugger for the obvious.’
BTW, Jeff Simpson is notoriously shallow in much of his economic analysis – not as bad a Neil Reynolds though

There is

one thing that would have an immediate effect on air pollution and would hardly effect the shipment of goods that are needed for day to day life. BAN ALL AIR TRAFFIC it would clean up the pollution in the upper atmosphere within days but alas there is no real intention of cleaning up the major polluters until big oil has stolen as much wealth from the real owners of the resource as possible.

Fumes might kinda hang longer!

DeMotto, I'm not trying to argue, but I have read that the effects on the upper atmosphere caused by Jet Engine exhaust doesn't dissapate entirely for twenty years. I would have to do some searching to find some sources.

I suspect that Air Travel will naturally decrease in the not too distant future unless we are cursed with a lot more ultra-rich than we have today. The agenda being pushed today in the US, isn't designed to increase the numbers of rich people. It's more about making the existing pigs even richer. Do these people dream of having a swimming pool someday like Unca' Scrooge McDuck's.

There is no doubt that a policy that resulted in more people having more money would be GOOD for busines, as there would be more discretionary income out there. Unfortunately that would necessitate sharing - which will be declared a sin in Mike Huckabee's revised 10+ Commandments.

Kermit Campbell has discovered that "it ain't easy being green." But with a compliant Lamestream Media and a couple hundred in house media consultants, it is easy to "appear" green enough to be re-elected - perhaps. Of course Kermit could step down before the 2009 election, especially if the disposal of BC's assets was already completed. Then a flight to Maui with a couple bags of cash, with the rest to follow by air-freight, might be the best plan.

Does anybody think any of the BCLieberals are lucky enough to be allowed to build a retirement bungalow at El Estancion de Bu$h in Paraquay?

about banning

How about using railroads instead of transport trucks?
Guess it is too obvious?

Quote:So the

True, but the measure that bonding rating agencies look to is "taxpayer-supported debt", which is currently at 14.1%.

One must also consider that crown corporations such as BC Hydro, ICBC, and BC Lottery Corp. could easily be sold off to the private sector, pay off their existing crown debt, and provide the BC gov't with a few billion additional dollars.

Nothing which I would advocate though.

As for the future increase in crown debt, most of that likely is a result of BC Hydro's upgrades to the Revelstoke and Peace dams (potentially Site C as well), and BC Transmission Corp's estimated $4 billion in upgrades.

The ~$13 billion in cumulative surpluses
were utilized as follows: (I stand corrected) 1/3 for (taxpayer-supported) debt repayment; 1/3 for tax relief; 1/3 for infrastructure;

Infrastructure (highways/bridges/rapid transit/hospitals,etc.) has become somewhat more complicated with the introduction of P3's... basically the gov't puts down some money upfront with the remainder financed by the private sector, resulting in a future annual expense liability to the government.

During the 1990's the BC government set up the BC Transportation Authority (basically a crown corporation) to offload highway/bridge/rapid transit infrastructure costs from taxpayer-supported debt.

During earlier decades, such infrastructure costs were, in fact, expensed under the provincial budget.

WOW, Gwest, I googled Paul Taylor

I wonder how the environment will ever get decent funding with so many back pockets through so many back doors for money to be placed instead.
http://www.rcmpwatch.com/bc-rail-case-wasnt-fully-probed-defence/

seeing is believing

Jonathan Friedman

Lund University, Sweden

www.rcmpwatch.com/bc-rail-case-wasnt-fully-pr

Sharing Is Good,

Many thanks for that RCMP link ... loaded with good, useful information.

Most people are

so far out of the money game we are hardly able to play anymore. The mega rich are playing to win while the majority struggle to survive. The mega rich are trying to out wealth each other and as they play, the prices of commodities are driven up. They are even playing with the food supply. The people are no more than slaves on plantation earth. The sooner we wake up and quit working for them and start working for ourselves the better off we`re going to be. They can only hurt us if we let them. We have the power to trade amongst ourselves we can barter shops don`t have to use government money to do business they can take anything they want as payment. I guess what I`m saying is maybe we need to quit bitching about everything and just do something about it. Just stop playing with there monopoly money. That`s it that`s the only way we can keep the fruits of our labour. I`ve started quite awhile ago to divest of there fake money. Still need it as people are still living the fraud. Hopefully enough people will wake up so we can function with our own trade system and not that of the bankster gangsters and their cronies

demotto

Well said demotto. Welcome to the exciting and rewarding world of 'Small Business'. You are not alone, as CIBC reports, "By city, the fastest pace of small business formation between 2003 and 2005 was in Vancouver,".

Before you start cheering

Please go to:

www.strategis.gc.ca/sbstatistics

locate the report Industry Canada: Key small business statistics - January 2007.

The url is as follows, but for some reason it doesn't display properly in the Tyee software:
www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/sbrp-rppe.nsf/vwapj/KSBS_Jan2007_Eng.pdf/$FILE/KSBS_Jan2007_Eng.pdf

And pay particular attention to Table 4 (page 10). The problem with CIBC is that they're great on the uptake but not so open and accountable on the downturn - as anyone watching how hard they were hit by the Enron collapse and, more recently, the failure of the sub-prime mortgage market.

Not that it had much effect on management compensation:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/rankings/boardreport/list.jsp?pageID=article&year=2006&content=howmuch&type=howmuch

Small business is

a good start but as long as we use their debt instrument as the medium of exchange we will remain their slaves. We need to use something of value to exchange for our labour not a government issued debt instrument. Bank of Canada money is nothing but a promise to pay at a later date and while we keep postponing that payment date the interest charges keep piling up.I`m not a genius but I can understand that if you lend me 10 dollars and require me to pay back 11 dollars back I`ll need to inflate the value of my labour by a dollar to come up with it. So on and on it goes requiring the ever inflation of prices to cover a debt that just keeps getting larger and larger. It wouldn`t be that way if the banks had lent something of their own to start with but all they lend us is debt. So why don`t we just promise to pay ourselves with debt we would be just as far ahead, maybe further at least we`d owe it to ourselves not some banker in England or Germany or wherever the shysters are

So what's it worth

If someone lends you money, or anything of value, should they not be compensated at all? If I give you help is that worthless? Will you lend me something without expecting any thanks in any form?

Definitely

our labour should be compensated. What is happening now is we are compensated with a debt instrument. If I work for and you pay me with food or some other tangible good I got paid value for value on an exchange labour for a good. On the other hand if you pay me with a promise to pay at a later date with a note [which our fake money today is] which you are also going to charge interest on for the priviledge of me holding until a later date for use wouldn`t I be a bit loony to accept such an offer. But that is exactly what we do everytime we accept payment in the form of paper money be it checks or Bank of Canada notes as they are all bored into existence. You cannot take those notes to the bank and receive anything of value for them. They have nothing to give you except another piece of debt. That`s why we have no money for education and health care. It takes all our income tax to pay the interest on money our Government bored from private banks and other institutions. If they bored the money for health and education and other infrastructure from the Bank of Canada like they are allowed to do in the Bank of Canada Act at no or very little interest we would have a very small debt and everything we need. The only people being hurt by doing the governments business that way would be the BANGSTER GANGSTERS. The private banks would still be able to lend money to private corporations and individuals but they would have to loan their own assets not bored money from the Bank of Canada.

By the way

the Bank of Canada is owned by the Government meaning we the people so don`t you think it should be utilized for the benefit of the people.

demotto

I can't imagine where you got that crazy propaganda.

Spending:

— Health spending increases by $2.9-billion over three years.

— $144-million over three years in extra money will go to K-12 education.

B.C. boosts funding to health authorities by 19 per cent over three years

Education budget is increased to $5.6 billion!

1 day ago

VICTORIA - The B.C. government's budget allocations for the province's health authorities over the next three years will climb to $9 billion dollars, the highest level ever.

BC Mary

Coming from you, Mary, those thanks are the highest praise I could receive. You are most humbly welcome. SIG

you're wasting your breath

you're wasting your breath rman. the ndp will always gripe about funding for health and education b/c it's easy to do. isn't it amazing how they funded and ran both ministries so poorly while they were in power in the 90's. 8 education ministers in 10 years and elizabeth cull practically destroying the health care system single-handedly. here's the capper: when she was soundly defeated in '96 they hired her back at $1000/day to fix the mess that she had made. what a bunch! i see that gregor robertson, one of the few who has some promise, is hoping to desert this sinking ship by winning the mayor's chair. how perfect is that?

realisticman

Sure they are adding to the budgets of education,health and what not. But at the same time our debt keeps going up. If you live in the so called heartlands there is good chance you`ve seen your community school or hospital closed for lack of funds. It doesn`t matter what political party you support they don`t work for us they work for the Bangster Gangsters.
I remember driving through the Cariboo back when that ship load of refuges landed and they sent them to Prince George `til they could send them back.I was listening to the news and it reported it had cost approximately 20 Million at that point to deal with these people. The next item on the news was they were having to shut down one of the Community schools, forget which one, for lack of the 180 Thousand to keep it open. Go figure hey more money in refuges than educating the kids.
Anyway the numbers go up but does it help or does it get lost in the bureaucracy. If we take Federal debt of say 540B for argument sake at 5%/annum with a pop. of 34M that`s approximately 795 dollars/person Now take BC debt of 27B which they say is publicly backed at 5%/annum with a pop. of 3M that`s approximately 450 dollars/person for total of 1,245 dollars/ person that we get the privilege of giving to the Bankster Gangsters every year for them making computer entries. Now that`s a business to have, no real assets, lend out nothing of value and collect interest. And all you have to do is look at their windfall profits to see how well it works. We are fools we are more than happy it seems to make them rich as we keep getting poorer

simonfraser

you're probably right but I just can't believe these people that swallow the NDP line so completely. Clearly, some of them have to spout contrarian views in a knee-jerk fashion because they're socialists-in-waiting. Memories are short and sometimes I can't stop trying to remind people how devastatingly poorly this province was managed by those whacko lefties and, although not every single one of the Liberals is as sharp as we'd hope, the province is far better off. It's important.

As i see it

until government starts to fund public business which is everything we own roads, schools, hospitals, rapid transit through the Bank of Canada e we will continue to become poorer and poorer and the Bangster Gangsters and their fellow shysters will continue to get rich off or backs. Back to the interest, I wonder how many people realize if you`re a family of four it is costing you $400 DOLLARS/MONTH just to cover your share of the interest on the Fed&Prov debt. Then you have municipal debt on top of that and we must not forget your own personal debt. It is probably add another $400 easy for that or more. So doesn`t that make you warm and fuzzy all over to know that you are helping those poor poor downtrodden Bankster Gangsters.Aint this just the greatest country to allow us such a privilege

Debt clock

I can`t vouch for its accuracy but is probably not far offhttp://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml

Perspective and a laugh

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB23Dj01.html

rman; i'm not thrilled

rman; i'm not thrilled about the liberals either, but i voted (so foolishly in hindsight) for the ndp in 1991 and vowed only two years into their mandate that i would NEVER vote for them again. i truly believe that a lot of people in this province are in the same boat because under their new leadership they really haven't proven that they are a viable alternative to the libs. the way things are going now it looks like the libs will be in power for a very long time to come, so it doesn't really matter what these lefties say anyway. i know one thing: they sure do take every opportunity to dis the libs and they sure do get upset when they hear our perspective. if carole james had proposed a carbon tax, for example, they would say it was the greatest thing since sliced borscht.

Oh I don't think so simonfraser

Maybe you just didn't understand what this carbon tax thing is...I think you need to look a little more closely, at what it really means.

As for problems the NDP might have relative to losing 'your' support - I think they'll live without it.

In fact, sometimes you just don't want certain people on your side of the fence...it's a question of guilt by association. Others might call it having the wrong kind of friends.

You hang out with Gordon and his friends – he’s the one with the ‘money tree’ after all. BTW, where did you come up with that locution?

gwest; i think the carbon

gwest; i think the carbon tax is total nonsense, but, like i said, i'm not willing to deny the libs because of it. also, i don't hang out with gordo and his friends, and i have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about, but i'm glad you appreciate my locution.

I've read it before somewhere

that bit about money trees you wrote yesterday - just trying to figure out where - it's not a term that's used much these days.

Still more debt...

Luke Skywalker:

This may be true, I don't know, but it's totally irrelevant. I want to know what BC's debt is. As the Sun article I mentioned in my last post points out, British Columbians are "ultimately on the hook for the debt of Crown corporations." BC Crown corporation debt is BC debt. You basically say as much in your last post:

During earlier decades, such infrastructure costs were, in fact, expensed under the provincial budget.

I believe the "shift BC debt to Crown corporations" scam was started under W.A.C. Bennett, right?

You've stated this several times. It is irrelevant to my argument, though. Did you read my last post? My point is that the government is calling something a surplus which really isn't. If they are paying for infrastructure, then that infrastructure is an expense and should not be considered surplus. I'm not sure I can put it more simply for you.

Must... not... feed... trolls... argh!!!

I couldn't help myself.

realisticman:

LOL! Hypocrisy much, realisticman?

And if you feed them, they won't go away

I wonder, jimmy, has someone invented a machine for cloning Ronnie robots ????

ME2: Quote:And if you feed

ME2:

I know, I know. It was a moment of weakness, that's all :)

realisticman

You are so biased.

It would have been politically unpalatable for you to mention that that is below the rate of inflation, and is therefore a cut in real dollars, wouldn't it?

And as for the NDP in the 90's, I can understand you and "simonfraser" wouldn't want to mention the amount given to the NDP government by the Feds compared to what the Feds gave the provincial Libs afterwards. When the NDP was in power in BC the Feds were fighting the deficit and health transfers to the provinces were down. Whereas the Libs were given one of Elliot's "money trees" to play with. And in spite of said money tree they proved inept at managing health care. There's good reasons its hard to produce improving results when funding is cut but there's no reason not to do so when funding is increased. The Libs are bad managers of health care, period.

You don't mention facts that are, shall we say, an "embarrassment" to your favourite governments because its best to ignore them when promoting the policies of those governments.

Having read you for the past few months it can clearly be stated you're as one-sided as Elliot is.

realisticman

At least you've finally come forward and admitted you're a huge Liberal supporter instead of continuing the charade you're unbiased.

No wonder you couldn't deal with what happened in New Zealand.

simonfraser

Upset? You should hear what people say on Can-West forums or on other right-wing websites when a Lefty puts forward an opinion. Assuming he's even allowed to post of course since Rightees tend to be afraid that allowing a Left-wing voice among them will brainwash the masses.

As for dissing the Libs, enlighten me as to when was the last time you wrote something that didn't dis the NDP? Because I've got a pretty good memory (as you know) and I'm positive your record on that is the same as R'mans, zero. But if you want to point to some article back in the archives where that actually occurred, feel free.

Every

man,women,and child has to pay a minimum of
100 DOLLARS/MONTH just to pay the interest
on Fed/Prov debt and all you can worry about
is which bunch of crooks is better at stealing our wealth. As the MOGAMBO would say

we`re all freaking doomed.

realisticman

Define who is "rich" according to Liberals.

Frank

You'll have to ask them. I cannot speak for them.

realisticman

Dodge.. weave.. avoid..

realisticman

I didn't ask you to speak for them, I asked you to identify them. Big difference.

From Dictionary.com

Strangely you knew who wasn't rich. Ergo, you must know who is or you wouldn't be able to say, as you did, who isn't.

Edito

Realisticman would like to withdraw the statement he made in the comments far above.

As he has now stated he has no idea what he was talking about.

demotto

Were the Bank of Canada to finance all the project types you write of it would require a quantum enlargement of their staff numbers which would then have to be financed by general funds that are derived from taxes or charged to the borrowers at a higher rate than prime which is what the banks can get the money for. No savings there.

Do you lend money at no interest?

Frank

You're flailing. You did not ask me to define the 'rich', you asked me:

Large L Liberals is what you wrote Frank and it is to they that you should direct your question.

Should you wish to ask me a question I will attempt to answer it.

realisticman

I used the word Liberal because you're a Liberal supporter r'man. Who else would I ask about what Liberals think than a Liberal supporter?

Are you telling me you have no idea what Liberals think? Then why do you vote for them?

Frank

I believe you are referring to an earlier post where I wrote:

Welfare rates for employable singles and single parents will also increase by $50 a month.

etc.
These aren't the rich.

jimbob1 wrote: "The income tax cut, really benefits the rich." Well as we can see it only benefits those earning under $108,000 a year. That means that in this budget someone earning 10, 20 or 30 thousand a year will benefit from a tax cut as well as some on welfare. As I said; these aren't the rich.

realisticman

Need more time? Takes more than 15 minutes to figure out a way to dodge that question does it?

Why not simply declare you knew what the Libs thought on election day but now you don't have a clue?

Or say the Libs think this or that but that you yourself voted for them even though you didn't agree with them and then refuse to say what you personally define as rich?

Personally I think you'll offer a link showing what Bill Gates or someone considers to be rich.

Yawn

Keep dodging

Frank

I'm not saying that I have no idea, or any idea, what Liberals think but I cannot speak for them.

The verb (trans.) 'do' is not applicable since my vote to one particular party is not guaranteed.

realisticman

Let's try again

Really? Why not?

If they're not rich, who is?

realisticman

.

You're not married are you? I would love to hear your reasoning as to why you didn't take out the garbage.

Perhaps you'd tell her "the garbage never asked me"?

So to sum up, you don't know what "rich" is?

f

Let me try and help you Frank because you don't seem to understand. Do you want to know, as you originally asked, who the Liberals define as the rich? Or, do want to know who I define as the rich?

realisticman

It must be fun walking through life without a clue.

I think the ridiculousness of your posts are now quite obvious to us all, even those most willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

realisticman

To paraphrase Monty Python, why not answer both "if you dare"?

Frank

Frank, I've lived a few different places and I have voted for a few different parties. Haven't you? Furthermore, parties change and are sometimes more attractive to vote for because of one individual or candidate. I don't go through life with my mind already made up about these things. I'd say that would be quite boring.

As I said a couple of times, ask a card-carrying Liberal if you want their opinion 'cause I'll not speak for them. I certainly do not define those earning 10, 20, 30 or even 40 thousand a year and receiving a tax cut in this budget, as rich.

As to who are the 'rich', that's difficult for me to define. It depends on so many things, dependents, age, etc.

realisticman

Thank you Ms Ann Elk. I'm sorry but we don't have time to hear your second theory about dinosaurs.

Thank you for continuing to avoid such a simple question. My posing the question to you was an act of merest whimsy anyway. I never expected a direct answer.

(You remind me of the proprietor of the cheese shop in another famous Monty Python sketch.)

Frank

I guess you're watch NZ.

“Latest NZ Poll Results Wake Up Call For All Politicians” –

HUGH PAVLETICH - DEMOGRAPHIA

The February 2008 New Zealand Fairfax Media- Nielson poll out today with the unnecessarily emotive header Labour poll-axed - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz has National Opposition at 55% - the current Labour Government 32% - with the Prime Minister Helen Clarks support having slumped to 29% and the National Party Leader now at 44%. Under the New Zealand Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, this poll result would indicate that National could govern alone with 69 seats leaving Labour on 40 within the 123 seat House.

realisticman

I'm sorry but I'm able to google on my own, so unless you'd like to actually state something yourself, you know as your opinion, I don't see why I should bother.

This, r/man, is about the funniest thing you've ever written

I don't go through life with my mind already made up about these things.
- realisticman

Thanks for the belly-laugh!

I'll be looking much more closely at your 'writings' from now on to see if I can discern even the slightest evidence that this might be true.

I suspect you've been posting here at Tyee a lot longer than I have so maybe someone with more experience, like Frank for example, could help me with the archaeology.

The foregoing codicil to the contrary, I’m quite sure, on the evidence before me that this must be something quite new for you.

When exactly did this independence of mind strike you?

Have you seen a doctor about it?

Such marked changes in personality can be a sign of several serious medical conditions.

gwest; 'money trees' not

gwest; 'money trees' not used much these days? it's a staple at every ndp caucus meeting.

"simonfraser"

I wish we had that Liberal money-tree, $55 billion is it in total debt? Wow, makes the NDP money-tree look like Charlie Brown's christmas tree.

I think its great we'll be paying for Liberal projects till we're all old and grey.

realistcman

Try reading the Bank of Canada Act

GWest

You'll be waiting till hell has frozen over. Seriously.

In "simonfraser's" and realisticman's long participation on the Tyee neither has ever said anything remotely balanced and have instead claimed that everyone but them is biased.

All you're going to get is denial that the Socreds and Liberals have ever made a bad decision and that the NDP has never made a good one.

demotto

You mean this?

(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year, and shall not, in the case of a provincial government, exceed one-fourth of that government’s estimated revenue for its fiscal year, and such loans shall be repaid before the end of the first quarter after the end of the fiscal year of the government that has contracted the loan;

You got it

and at the current time the Federal Government is only using a small portion of that available credit. And yes if I was lending the money or whatever to myself I wouldn`t charge myself interest. Does BC even use that available credit ? I think not.

Thanks Frank

Pretty much what I expected - on form.

I'd be watching the r/man though - he might have caught something!

I guess the money tree will be pretty much bare after the Olympics eh simon!

further to carbon tax and global warming

Holy Cow!
Much blather and smoke in regards to our topic. It is good that people have opinions, but sometimes I really wonder if we listen to one another. There is a big difference between an argument and a discussion.
I rather liked what "raingirl" had to say.

Frank, Realisticman and GWest

Please work to avoid dragging the thread down into a chain of exchanged insults. It dissuades others from contributing substantive comments.

smaller one

Now you`ve opened up a whole new can of worms. There are probably hundreds of examples of hypocrisy in the way we allow commerce to carry on. I think if we get our finances in order we will be better able to deal with our other problems. As long as the Bankster Gangsters are reaping the benefits nothing is going to change. Its pollute on as the doctrine.

One of the things I'd like to hear the minister explain

Is this:
She was reported to have said the following in the National Post on February 20.

"The carbon tax legislation will also enforce a 10% salary deduction to any future finance minister who does not uphold the revenue neutral promise...."

I'm really curious how she's going to come up with legislation that accomplishes 'that' objective.