Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

BC Budget


  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#151 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:16 PM

Budget cuts announced for forest stewardship in British Columbia are signs of the government's short term thinking, a theft from future generations and evidence that recent commitments were lies, according to critics.

The minister responsible, Steve Thomson, acknowledges the ministry made sacrifices to help balance the provincial budget, but argues the key inventory work is being done to prepare for future years when the budget is restored.

"Significant cuts to budgets that were already inadequate," was how the NDP's forestry critic, Norm Macdonald, characterized the budget for the ministry of forests, lands and natural resource operations.

In the spring and summer Macdonald was among NDP and Liberal MLAs who participated on the Special Committee on Timber Supply that toured the province to find ways to support communities that depend on forestry. "Instead what we see is a situation that was bad, that we were told repeatedly was a crisis, and what the government has chosen to do is choose to make further cuts."
The budget announced Feb. 19 dropped the ministry's budget for resource stewardship by more than a third, from $102.2 million in the current year to $66.95 million in 2013-14.

According to the budget documents, that money is for various things including, "land based investments; timber supply planning and determination; tree improvement; growth and yield, silviculture, and forest genetics related research; forest health, forest inventory and monitoring the effectiveness of resource practices; land and marine use planning; and legislation, policies, and practices that support sustainable management of forests, water, fish, wildlife, and habitat."

'Very concerned': Sierra Club

Various observers noted the cut. The Sierra Club of B.C.'s acting executive director, Sarah Cox, said she is "Very concerned about that."
"I don't think they have practiced healthy forestry for a long time," said Green Party Leader Jane Sterk. "Silviculture has never kept up to the needs of the harvest."

The province has gotten to a point where there are few government forestry officials left in the communities their decisions affect, she said. "If you don't live in a community, if you're not the professional forester in that community, decisions about what to sacrifice are pretty easy to make."

For several years the government has been saying it would focus on intensive forest management as a way to mitigate the dropping timber supply, pointed out Bob Simpson, the independent MLA for Cariboo North and a former forest company executive.

The Strategic Plan released with the budget, for instance, referred to the Beyond the Beetle government report released in the fall. "The Action Plan focuses on reforestation, forest inventory, fuel management and intensive and innovative silviculture," it said. "New funding is increasing the area for re-inventory from 18 million hectares to 35 million hectares, with the highest priority being the areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle."
"They make pronouncements as if it's reality," said Simpson. "They lied to the public... It's all lies. There's no other way you can characterize it. The current government has elevated government propaganda beyond any reasonable test of honesty."


'Difficult decisions': minister

Minister Thomson said the government is following through on what it said it would do. "This is an amount that was signalled before in the budget last year in order to contribute to the balanced budget," he said.

"We made some difficult decisions, but what we ensured in this process is that the key priority in terms of strategic inventory work is retained within the budget numbers," he said. "We'll be increasing our investment in inventory work, particularly in the key inventories that need to be done in the mountain pine beetle impacted areas."

That way, when "all the funding is restored" next year, the ministry will have the information it needs available, he said.

"In addition to that, because we had the uplift last year we're in a position next year where we'll be re-planting over 22 million trees, which is a 50 per cent increase from the amount this year, and 22 million in the following year as well," said Thomson.

Asked what the cuts will affect, he said, "The process, there will be some delays in some of the reforestation preparation work and things like that for the following years in the out years."

Groups including the Association of Professional Foresters have called on the government to do the inventory work, he said. "That's where we get the best investment, bang for the dollars that are being spent in a time of difficult fiscal circumstances as we are bringing forward a balanced budget."
The government had been waiting for the pine beetle die off to run its course before doing the inventory work, and now's the time to proceed, Thomson said. By the end of the month he hopes to release a 10-year strategic inventory plan, he said.

Making crisis worse, says NDP

The NDP's Macdonald said the government has been under funding forest stewardship for a long time. For some 74 per cent of the land base, the government is using data that is 30 years old, he said.

"Over the past 10 years, the consistent under funding of inventory has meant that we don't know what's happening on the land," he said. "You can't manage what you haven't measured."

Nor has treeplanting kept up with need or past promises, he said. By 2012, the government was to be planting 50 million seedlings a year, he said. "This guarantees we're going to get set back further."

There are between one million and two million hectares of logged land that are known to be not sufficiently restocked, Macdonald said. (Some estimates put the figure as high as nine million hectares.)

"There's a crisis in NSR and the government's response is to make it worse," he said. "The NDP did it. The Social Credit did it. Any competent government, and it comes down to competence, any competent government looks after its most valuable asset."

The current government has failed to manage public lands in a way that will keep them productive in the future, he said. "These guys consistently see the public assets that we have as something you sell off and degrade."

Nor does the government's failure help the forest companies who market their products as coming from sustainably managed forests, he said. "They're selling a brand and that brand has to be backed up with a reality... That's the province's responsibility."

Bill Routley, the MLA for Cowichan Valley also sat on the Special Committee on Timber Supply. The committee visited 16 communities, received 650 submissions and heard from various experts including three former B.C. chief foresters. It came up with recommendations that included a focus on inventory, tree planting and forest health that members unanimously endorsed.

"I was optimistic," said Routley, adding he felt proud of the committee's work. "I feel shot through the surrender flag now... To have it not only abandoned, but cut the budget, is outrageous."

The cut puts the BC Liberals' short-term political needs ahead of the long-term needs of the forest, he said. "They're actually stealing from future generations of forest communities," he said. "It's really using it as a cash cow for the province and they are stealing from our forest communities in B.C." Posted Image

http://thetyee.ca/Ne...ulture-Funding/
  • 0

#152 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:23 PM

Yes, this is written by an NDP'er so it's obviously biased, but the part regarding not counting your chickens before they hatch is certainly relevant...


The B.C. Liberal government’s budget tabled last week is not a balanced budget. It is a bogus budget, filled with accounting tricks, unrealistic revenue projections, and unsustainable expenditures in areas that support British Columbians like health care, postsecondary education, and skills training.






In reality, this is the fifth deficit budget in a row tabled by the Liberals.


This budget relies on nearly $800 million from a fire sale of B.C.’s valuable land and assets. Never mind how short-sighted that plan is, most of the properties they are banking on aren’t even for sale yet. Since they first announced their fire sale in the 2012 budget, they’ve completed no sales.


Respected economist Don Drummond wrote a report for the Ontario government that addressed the issue of asset sales. He advised, “Do not count chickens before they are hatched. If assets are to be sold, never incorporate any revenue from such planned sales into a budget before the fact.”


But that’s exactly what the Liberals are doing.


The Liberals’ projected expenditures are unrealistic and unsustainable. Just look at the health care budget. They cut the projected increase to health care by $233 million, but failed to tell British Columbians the truth about what that will mean to them.


Either the $233-million drop in health spending isn't credible, or the Liberal government is planning more service cuts to health care.

Remember that before the 2009 election the Liberals said they would protect health care, but right after the Liberals were returned to office, they forced health authorities to make cuts to the services British Columbians rely on.


British Columbians also haven’t forgotten that the Liberals promised before the 2009 election that their deficit budget would be in the red by $495 million “maximum”, which ballooned to almost $2 billion after the election.


The Liberals also promised, in writing, that they wouldn’t implement an HST before the 2009 election. Yet they have squandered their entire term in office on the HST, creating uncertainty in the B.C. economy with a massive tax shift from big corporations to working families and small businesses that voters eventually rejected.


While the Liberals spend nearly $17 million of taxpayers’ money on pre-election partisan ads to promote the premier’s record on skills training, their budget reveals the truth: they have again cut the budget for postsecondary education, a decision that will negatively affect our province's long-term prosperity.


This budget predicts a reduction in the number of student spaces in college and university, provides less money for student assistance and less support for advanced education. There is no new investment in apprenticeship and industry training.


In contrast, New Democrats will present a practical plan connected to the priorities of British Columbia and its regions. Priorities like improving access to skills training and postsecondary education. Our plan will focus on key priorities that will reduce inequality and improve our economy. And we’ll show how we will pay for our priorities.

For example, New Democrat leader Adrian Dix has proposed a nonrepayable student grant program for young British Columbians and workers in transition to gain access to postsecondary programs, which we will fund through the reinstatement of a tax on big banks.


The Liberals’ budget is not balanced and it promises to saddle the next government with a very serious fiscal situation. It shows the Liberals are not up to the challenges facing B.C. today. It’s time for a new and better government that is more connected to British Columbians.


Adrian Dix and B.C.’s New Democrats are offering change for the better, one practical step at a time.


http://www.straight....counting-tricks
  • 0

#153 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:31 PM

Yes, this is written by an NDP'er so it's obviously biased, but the part regarding not counting your chickens before they hatch is certainly relevant...
http://www.straight....counting-tricks

More to the point it was written by Bruce Ralston - B.C. New Democrat finance critic and the MLA for Surrey-Whalley.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#154 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:32 PM

More to the point it was written by Bruce Ralston - B.C. New Democrat finance critic and the MLA for Surrey-Whalley.


Yeah, like I said. But his point re: chickens hatching remains.
  • 0

#155 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,428 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 25 February 2013 - 12:35 PM

More to the point it was written by Bruce Ralston - B.C. New Democrat finance critic and the MLA for Surrey-Whalley.


How about you argue the points of the article rather than point out the already noted author? It's disingenuous distraction from someone I would hope wouldn't stoop to that level.

Also, it's not like 99% of the articles you quote/link aren't written with a heavy pro-Liberal bias.

The Liberal budget has many holes in it as reiterated by that article.

Edited by J.R., 25 February 2013 - 12:36 PM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#156 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,112 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:15 PM

Budget cuts announced for forest stewardship in British Columbia are signs of the government's short term thinking, a theft from future generations and evidence that recent commitments were lies, according to critics.

The minister responsible, Steve Thomson, acknowledges the ministry made sacrifices to help balance the provincial budget, but argues the key inventory work is being done to prepare for future years when the budget is restored.

"Significant cuts to budgets that were already inadequate," was how the NDP's forestry critic, Norm Macdonald, characterized the budget for the ministry of forests, lands and natural resource operations.

In the spring and summer Macdonald was among NDP and Liberal MLAs who participated on the Special Committee on Timber Supply that toured the province to find ways to support communities that depend on forestry. "Instead what we see is a situation that was bad, that we were told repeatedly was a crisis, and what the government has chosen to do is choose to make further cuts."
The budget announced Feb. 19 dropped the ministry's budget for resource stewardship by more than a third, from $102.2 million in the current year to $66.95 million in 2013-14.

According to the budget documents, that money is for various things including, "land based investments; timber supply planning and determination; tree improvement; growth and yield, silviculture, and forest genetics related research; forest health, forest inventory and monitoring the effectiveness of resource practices; land and marine use planning; and legislation, policies, and practices that support sustainable management of forests, water, fish, wildlife, and habitat."

'Very concerned': Sierra Club

Various observers noted the cut. The Sierra Club of B.C.'s acting executive director, Sarah Cox, said she is "Very concerned about that."
"I don't think they have practiced healthy forestry for a long time," said Green Party Leader Jane Sterk. "Silviculture has never kept up to the needs of the harvest."

The province has gotten to a point where there are few government forestry officials left in the communities their decisions affect, she said. "If you don't live in a community, if you're not the professional forester in that community, decisions about what to sacrifice are pretty easy to make."

For several years the government has been saying it would focus on intensive forest management as a way to mitigate the dropping timber supply, pointed out Bob Simpson, the independent MLA for Cariboo North and a former forest company executive.

The Strategic Plan released with the budget, for instance, referred to the Beyond the Beetle government report released in the fall. "The Action Plan focuses on reforestation, forest inventory, fuel management and intensive and innovative silviculture," it said. "New funding is increasing the area for re-inventory from 18 million hectares to 35 million hectares, with the highest priority being the areas impacted by the mountain pine beetle."
"They make pronouncements as if it's reality," said Simpson. "They lied to the public... It's all lies. There's no other way you can characterize it. The current government has elevated government propaganda beyond any reasonable test of honesty."


'Difficult decisions': minister

Minister Thomson said the government is following through on what it said it would do. "This is an amount that was signalled before in the budget last year in order to contribute to the balanced budget," he said.

"We made some difficult decisions, but what we ensured in this process is that the key priority in terms of strategic inventory work is retained within the budget numbers," he said. "We'll be increasing our investment in inventory work, particularly in the key inventories that need to be done in the mountain pine beetle impacted areas."

That way, when "all the funding is restored" next year, the ministry will have the information it needs available, he said.

"In addition to that, because we had the uplift last year we're in a position next year where we'll be re-planting over 22 million trees, which is a 50 per cent increase from the amount this year, and 22 million in the following year as well," said Thomson.

Asked what the cuts will affect, he said, "The process, there will be some delays in some of the reforestation preparation work and things like that for the following years in the out years."

Groups including the Association of Professional Foresters have called on the government to do the inventory work, he said. "That's where we get the best investment, bang for the dollars that are being spent in a time of difficult fiscal circumstances as we are bringing forward a balanced budget."
The government had been waiting for the pine beetle die off to run its course before doing the inventory work, and now's the time to proceed, Thomson said. By the end of the month he hopes to release a 10-year strategic inventory plan, he said.

Making crisis worse, says NDP

The NDP's Macdonald said the government has been under funding forest stewardship for a long time. For some 74 per cent of the land base, the government is using data that is 30 years old, he said.

"Over the past 10 years, the consistent under funding of inventory has meant that we don't know what's happening on the land," he said. "You can't manage what you haven't measured."

Nor has treeplanting kept up with need or past promises, he said. By 2012, the government was to be planting 50 million seedlings a year, he said. "This guarantees we're going to get set back further."

There are between one million and two million hectares of logged land that are known to be not sufficiently restocked, Macdonald said. (Some estimates put the figure as high as nine million hectares.)

"There's a crisis in NSR and the government's response is to make it worse," he said. "The NDP did it. The Social Credit did it. Any competent government, and it comes down to competence, any competent government looks after its most valuable asset."

The current government has failed to manage public lands in a way that will keep them productive in the future, he said. "These guys consistently see the public assets that we have as something you sell off and degrade."

Nor does the government's failure help the forest companies who market their products as coming from sustainably managed forests, he said. "They're selling a brand and that brand has to be backed up with a reality... That's the province's responsibility."

Bill Routley, the MLA for Cowichan Valley also sat on the Special Committee on Timber Supply. The committee visited 16 communities, received 650 submissions and heard from various experts including three former B.C. chief foresters. It came up with recommendations that included a focus on inventory, tree planting and forest health that members unanimously endorsed.

"I was optimistic," said Routley, adding he felt proud of the committee's work. "I feel shot through the surrender flag now... To have it not only abandoned, but cut the budget, is outrageous."

The cut puts the BC Liberals' short-term political needs ahead of the long-term needs of the forest, he said. "They're actually stealing from future generations of forest communities," he said. "It's really using it as a cash cow for the province and they are stealing from our forest communities in B.C." Posted Image

http://thetyee.ca/Ne...ulture-Funding/


What cuts to other programs or tax increases should we be making to dump money into this?

All I ever hear is how funding for just about everything is too low and how taxes are too high.
  • 0

#157 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:22 PM

What cuts to other programs or tax increases should we be making to dump money into this?

All I ever hear is how funding for just about everything is too low and how taxes are too high.


Well I would rather have the big picture discussion--are these programs worth it. What are our priorities as a province, what are we trying to do.

Just taking from a to give to b without a rationale is stupid.
  • 0

#158 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:39 PM

Yeah, like I said. But his point re: chickens hatching remains.

Only if you ignore what the report was all about and take one line out of context.


This was one line lifted from a massive report (540 pages) on re-structuring the Ontario public service and if you read it you would know that the BC NDP would reject 99.99% of the report because it removes a great deal of power from public sector unions - the main power base for the BC NDP. The other major thrust of the report was spending restraint and that clearly is not something that the BC NDP favour.

Here is the report:
http://www.fin.gov.o...ters/report.pdf

And the quote was taken out of context and omitted a very important qualifier. Only asset sales "solely for the purpose of a one-time cash injection..." are not recommended. Also Drummond favours sale of public assets, he simply says there are other ways to account for them in financial statements and budgets. And note his accounting approach is not the one adopted by BC and approved as proper accounting practise by the BC Auditor General:

Do not hang onto public assets or public service delivery when better options exist. Consider privatizing assets and moving to the private delivery of services wherever feasible. We suggest pursuing this course only where the public can get better value for money spent without compromising access to services, not for ideological reasons In budget planning, do not count chickens before they are hatched. If assets are to be sold, never incorporate any revenue from such planned sales into a budget before the fact; there is always uncertainty over the timing, accounting treatment and ultimate market value of any sale. Instead, simply record any sale in the appropriate manner if and when it is completed.

...

The length of time it will take to return to balance in a sustainable fashion significantly changes the nature of the approach. Traditional “short-term fixes” will not be adequate or even, in many cases, appropriate. Examples include asset sales solely for the purpose of a one-time cash injection...freezes to wages or managers’ bonuses; and deferrals of capital investments and other necessary spending. Kicking the can down the road is no solution. Spending restraint must be thoroughly and consistently tied to permanent reforms in how government operates so the results of the restraint exercise can be sustained over a long period.


Now if Ralston and the BC NDP want to strip power from public sector unions, implement spending restraint as part of permanent downsizing of government and privatize public assets where it gives value as "respected economist Don Drummond" recommends then I can get on board with that. How about you?

Be careful what you wish for, eh???

BTW Glen Clark did the same and much much worse during the fudge-it budget election when he performed an amazing accounting sleight of hand... and his chief of staff was none other than.... wait for it....

ADRIAN DIX

It was discovered, shortly after the election, that the balanced budgets for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years on which Clark had campaigned so strongly were not balanced but deficits. This was termed the "fudge-it" budget fiasco. Further as well as accounting for asset sales that were forecast Clark had massive debt shifted onto Crown Corporations so as to create a perception of "surpluses".
http://www.davemanue...udge-it-budget/

And after the election when caught out? Clark asked for "wiggle room" - more like weasel room.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#159 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:40 PM

How about you argue the points of the article rather than point out the already noted author? It's disingenuous distraction from someone I would hope wouldn't stoop to that level.

Also, it's not like 99% of the articles you quote/link aren't written with a heavy pro-Liberal bias.

The Liberal budget has many holes in it as reiterated by that article.

See my post above.

I did argue the points and showed that the BC NDP has done this and much worse.

And the person with his hand in those past fudge-it budgets was none other than Adrian Dix. He was not only Premier Clark's chief of staff but was also the deputy minister when Clark was finance minister so pretty hard to claim he did not know what was going on.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 25 February 2013 - 02:42 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#160 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:41 PM

How about you argue the points of the article rather than point out the already noted author? It's disingenuous distraction from someone I would hope wouldn't stoop to that level.

Also, it's not like 99% of the articles you quote/link aren't written with a heavy pro-Liberal bias.

The Liberal budget has many holes in it as reiterated by that article.

Double post. What the heck is going on here with some posts not appearing and others doubling up???

Edited by Wetcoaster, 25 February 2013 - 02:42 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#161 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:45 PM

See my post above.

I did argue the points and showed that the BC NDP has done this and much worse.

And the person with his hand in those past fudge-it budgets was none other than Adrian Dix. He was not only Premier Clark's chief of staff but was also the deputy minister when Clark was finance minister so pretty hard to claim he did not know what was going on.


So you are of the opinion that balancing your budet based on selling off assets at assumed prices is good economic policy? Would you do that in your personal finances? Sell off your house, car or other fixed assets so you can stay in the black?

And I don't care that the NDP have done it. Your race to the bottom mentality is sickening and is exactly why we get stuck with the least worst rather than anything better.
  • 0

#162 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

Only if you ignore what the report was all about and take one line out of context.


This was one line lifted from a massive report (540 pages) on re-structuring the Ontario public service and if you read it you would know that the BC NDP would reject 99.99% of the report because it removes a great deal of power from public sector unions - the main power base for the BC NDP. The other major thrust of the report was spending restraint and that clearly is not something that the BC NDP favour.

Here is the report:
http://www.fin.gov.o...ters/report.pdf


How is selling off assets not a one time cash infusion?
  • 0

#163 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:52 PM

So you are of the opinion that balancing your budet based on selling off assets at assumed prices is good economic policy? Would you do that in your personal finances? Sell off your house, car or other fixed assets so you can stay in the black?

And I don't care that the NDP have done it. Your race to the bottom mentality is sickening and is exactly why we get stuck with the least worst rather than anything better.

Better than any economic policies (or lack thereof) I have seen coming from the BC NDP.

The point is the BC NDP have done much worse in the past.

And people think it is a good idea to trust Adrian Dix who was at the centre of the past wrongdoing?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#164 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,428 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

See my post above.

I did argue the points and showed that the BC NDP has done this and much worse.

And the person with his hand in those past fudge-it budgets was none other than Adrian Dix. He was not only Premier Clark's chief of staff but was also the deputy minister when Clark was finance minister so pretty hard to claim he did not know what was going on.


I don't believe Inane actually said anything along the lines of "the NDP would be/do better". As such I have to ask why you continue to bring it up?

This very much falls under the "two wrongs don't make a right" category IMO. The Libs are wrong for this province and so are the NDP. Let's talk about the right alternatives. Or at the very least, if you're critiquing or praising a current Liberal budget, try commenting on the actual Liberal budget, not some equally horrible policy from decades ago from an unrelated party.

Edited by J.R., 25 February 2013 - 02:54 PM.

  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#165 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:58 PM

Better than any economic policies (or lack thereof) I have seen coming from the BC NDP.

The point is the BC NDP have done much worse in the past.

And people think it is a good idea to trust Adrian Dix who was at the centre of the past wrongdoing?


This topic is not about what the NDP may or may not have done in past or the future.

This is about the current, Liberal budget.

Do you agree with selling off assets to balance a budget? Does that make sense?
  • 0

#166 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:58 PM

How is selling off assets not a one time cash infusion?

Of course that is an effect (you get money when selling an asset - what a surprise) but as the report by "respected economist Don Drummond" points out that there are good reasons to sell public assets and privatize government functions and agencies - something the BC NDP have opposed.

You did read and comprehend what Drummond wrote, eh? Or are you taking the blinkered (and disingenuous) Bruce Ralston approach and lifting but one line out of a very comprehensive report. That report runs totally counter to the policies espoused by the BC NDP.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#167 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 02:59 PM

This topic is not about what the NDP may or may not have done in past or the future.

This is about the current, Liberal budget.

Do you agree with selling off assets to balance a budget? Does that make sense?

As the Drummond Report sets out it depends upon the public asset.

And despite what you and the BC NDP try, how can you evaluate the BC Liberal budget when the BC NDP refuse to say what they would do any different.

Edited by Wetcoaster, 25 February 2013 - 03:07 PM.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#168 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:24 PM

Of course that is an effect (you get money when selling an asset - what a surprise) but as the report by "respected economist Don Drummond" points out that there are good reasons to sell public assets and privatize government functions and agencies - something the BC NDP have opposed.

You did read and comprehend what Drummond wrote, eh? Or are you taking the blinkered (and disingenuous) Bruce Ralston approach and lifting but one line out of a very comprehensive report. That report runs totally counter to the policies espoused by the BC NDP.


I disagree. Selling off assets for short term financial gain when you are responsible for long term planning is not smart. You don't mix capital and operating.

Edited by inane, 25 February 2013 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

#169 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,568 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

You are a new Moderator?  Congratulations.  I guess they will take anyone these days.


Oh the irony!!
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#170 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:26 PM

As the Drummond Report sets out it depends upon the public asset.

And despite what you and the BC NDP try, how can you evaluate the BC Liberal budget when the BC NDP refuse to say what they would do any different.


No, I can evaluate the budget based on the budget. What does it matter what the NDP would or would not do, it is not their budget to defend.

You still haven't answered the question.
  • 0

#171 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,568 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:32 PM

why wont government cut back spending on transportation which is really really useless for most of the time and use that for preserving some of the environemtn so we dont have to extract oil to earn revenues in this province ?


one of the best ways to protect the environment is to invest in public transit.
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#172 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:35 PM

Oh the irony!!

What irony?

I leave moderating up to the Moderators. If I perceive a poster breaching the rules, I do what the Board Rules state and make a report.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#173 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:38 PM

No, I can evaluate the budget based on the budget. What does it matter what the NDP would or would not do, it is not their budget to defend.

You still haven't answered the question.

Since one is constrained by the possible, not considering what the Bc NDP would propose in its place is critical to evaluating the BC Liberal budget.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#174 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:43 PM

edited

Edited by inane, 25 February 2013 - 03:45 PM.

  • 0

#175 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 03:44 PM

No, it is not. I don't need to know what the NDP will do about topic x before knowing that what the Liberals are doing about topic x is wrong. Your reliance on the opposition to frame your thought is bizarre.


But I know why you think that. The NDP will come out with a proposed budget or set of ideas or whatever that will say x, y & z. You'll say 'look at how much worse x, y & z is than what the Liberals are saying' thereby continuing your race to the bottom while having to avoid critcizing the Liberal budget or even discussing it as you'll just discuss how much worse the NDP budget is.
  • 1

#176 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:08 PM

No, it is not. I don't need to know what the NDP will do about topic x before knowing that what the Liberals are doing about topic x is wrong. Your reliance on the opposition to frame your thought is bizarre.


But I know why you think that. The NDP will come out with a proposed budget or set of ideas or whatever that will say x, y & z. You'll say 'look at how much worse x, y & z is than what the Liberals are saying' thereby continuing your race to the bottom while having to avoid critcizing the Liberal budget or even discussing it as you'll just discuss how much worse the NDP budget is.

Nope.

If you are positing your party to replace the the government then you need to set out what you would do differently. The budget is the blueprint for that plan.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#177 Langdon Algur

Langdon Algur

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,568 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:12 PM

Nope.

If you are positing your party to replace the the government then you need to set out what you would do differently.  The budget is the blueprint for that plan.


Pretty sure the thread topic isn't about how or why the NDP should replace the Liberials, it's about the Liberial Budget. Why does a comment on the Liberial party budget need to be about the NDP?
  • 0
"What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?" ~ Henry David Thoreau

CDC's 2014 draft preferences vs. Canucks actual picks
http://forum.canucks...g-2014-edition/

#178 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:27 PM

Pretty sure the thread topic isn't about how or why the NDP should replace the Liberials, it's about the Liberial Budget. Why does a comment on the Liberial party budget need to be about the NDP?


It doesn't.
  • 0

#179 silverpig

silverpig

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,457 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 03

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:39 PM

I disagree. Selling off assets for short term financial gain when you are responsible for long term planning is not smart. You don't mix capital and operating.


If you include capital investments in your budget, then you can include capital sales as well.

Your point is that you don't want a structural deficit, where you have to always rely on capital sell-offs to maintain an operating budget. This is fair, but isn't necessarily what you said.
  • 0
Moo

#180 inane

inane

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,858 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 25 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

If you include capital investments in your budget, then you can include capital sales as well.

Your point is that you don't want a structural deficit, where you have to always rely on capital sell-offs to maintain an operating budget. This is fair, but isn't necessarily what you said.


Sure, I could have been clearer, you get what I'm saying though.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.