Tories drowned by calls attacking $2-million fake lake
Lemmy Lemmy:
Yeah, $60K is nothing, shouldn't even concern us.

And it's 60K for the 10 centimeter deep pool.. 2 million for the pavilion that houses the fake lake.
andyt @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 11:48 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
No. One fuck up does not the other a good deal make. Both are gross misuses of public money.
Exactly. And a past fuck up by a govt no longer in power does not excuse or make up for a current fuck up by a current govt. You want to focus on the past or the present?
Anybody heard a rational explanation why Philadelphia could do it for 20 mil last year, but we have to spend 50 times as much this year?
andyt andyt:
Anybody heard a rational explanation why Philadelphia could do it for 20 mil last year, but we have to spend 50 times as much this year?
Tony Clement needed a new outhouse at the cottage.
$1:
The opposition also zeroed in on other projects paid for with designated G8 money, such as $270,000 to build new toilets 20 kilometres away from the G8 meeting site or $1.8 million for sidewalk and park upgrades in Parry Sound, Ont., 100 kilometres away from the G8 site.
Parry Sound, the new toilets, and the G8 meeting site in Huntsville, Ont., are all within the riding of Industry Minister Tony Clement. His riding is seeing about $50 million worth of infrastructure improvements
Never mind this goverment was not going to stand for that remember , hahahahahahahaha
And out come the rabid partisans. So dies the thread.
andyt andyt:
er, BL, it sounds like they have one of these summits every year - see my above post. (I admit I havn't followed that closely) But to go from 18mil to 1.1 bil seems a little steep.
And we're now paying for the Olympics when the money's not there for things that are really needed.
WE don't host one of these every year. The last time we did was early 2002 if my memory serves me correctly.
Yes, there is one every year, but the location rotates, so Canada doesn't have to pay $1 billion each and every year, just when we host it.
andyt @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:08 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
er, BL, it sounds like they have one of these summits every year - see my above post. (I admit I havn't followed that closely) But to go from 18mil to 1.1 bil seems a little steep.
And we're now paying for the Olympics when the money's not there for things that are really needed.
WE don't host one of these every year. The last time we did was early 2002 if my memory serves me correctly.
Yes, there is one every year, but the location rotates, so Canada doesn't have to pay $1 billion each and every year, just when we host it.
Ok,. I get your point. Now address the point that last year's cost 18 million vs our 1.1 billion.
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
bootlegga bootlegga:
As for the money spent on the G20 summit, that's kinda the price of admission if you want to sit at the adult table with the big boys. I may not like spending that kind of money, but it's only once a decade or so, and as long as we gain some positive economic/political benefit from it, I don't have a big problem with it.
Not sure I buy this. First of all, Canada is relatively small player in world geo-political affairs. So, if it costs a billion to "sit down with the big boys" then maybe we should be at the little boys table. This whole desire in CFanada (and it's really bad in Vancouver) to be "world-class" is just vulgar vanity at its worst.
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of all?"
"Why you are of course, Vancouver"I certainly can't see the economic benefit exceeding the total security price tag, and even if it does, why should my taxpaying dollar go to benfitting Ontario businesses in the area?
And third, even if its agreed that we really should hold this, I can't believe that they can't get the job done for a hell of a lot chepaer than a thousand million dollars.
These conferences are pretty much the same as defence spending, foreign aid, etc. If you don't spend the money, no one takes you seriously. Frankly, it seems to me that Canadians generally want to be taken seriously without spending a penny. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.
You can't expect people to take you seriously if you don't participate in UN organizations and/or have a credible military and/or a decent economy and/or spend a fair bit on foreign aid. When was the last time the world gave a damn about what Ghana, Bhutan, or Guyana (or pretty much any country not part of the G20) had to say on world affairs? Even many places in eastern Europe don't have any influence. For most of the 80s and 90s, we didn't spend much on any of those things and our international credibility fell and other countries stopped paying attention to us.
The next time you travel outside of Canada you'll see just how invisible this country is on the world scene.
If Canadians want to be relegated to the the status of some third world nation, then we can stop spending money on all those things and become totally insular like much of the 3rd world. Frankly, I'm not one of those people.
Some Canadians might not like it, but Canada matters again because we upped defence spending, because we went to Afghanistan, and because we have a strong, healthy economy (among other things). I doubt we'll see a time again when Canada was as influential as we were after WW2, but that's no reason not to try IMHO.
Lemmy @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:22 pm
What kind of conference fees are those attending paying? We should be recouping the costs of this sort of event, if we're gonna host it, by charging those attending. Every conference I've ever gone to has a registration fee. If the cost is $1B and there are 19 foreign delegates, that's $1B/19 = $53M per delegate. Pay the conference fee or fuck off.
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
er, BL, it sounds like they have one of these summits every year - see my above post. (I admit I havn't followed that closely) But to go from 18mil to 1.1 bil seems a little steep.
And we're now paying for the Olympics when the money's not there for things that are really needed.
WE don't host one of these every year. The last time we did was early 2002 if my memory serves me correctly.
Yes, there is one every year, but the location rotates, so Canada doesn't have to pay $1 billion each and every year, just when we host it.
Ok,. I get your point. Now address the point that last year's cost 18 million vs our 1.1 billion.
I have no idea why ours costs so much more. One guess would be that it's cheaper in Pittsburgh than Muskoka. Another might be that they didn't include security costs, given that they have to pay the salaries of all their soldiers/policemen anyways. But to accurately answer your question, I'd have to see an itemized breakdown of the US conference last year and ours to tell you why.
It's a lot of money, but sometimes that's what membership costs you. NATO has cost us billions of dollars, but we don't complain about that, do we? Same with the UN. Other organizations (la Frrancophonie, OAS, Commonwealth, for example)we're a part of cost us a small fortune every year, where's your criticism of that?
andyt @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 12:25 pm
'Comon BL - tell us why Philadelphia can do this for 18 mil and London for 30, but we have to pay 1.1 bil. Just how desperate are we to impress the big boys, and what exactly do we get from that? You think they're going to respect us more because we threw an expensive do? We're still the little guy and that confab. Just a 3 dressed up as a 9.
andyt andyt:
'Comon BL - tell us why Philadelphia can do this for 18 mil and London for 30, but we have to pay 1.1 bil. Just how desperate are we to impress the big boys, and what exactly do we get from that? You think they're going to respect us more because we threw an expensive do? We're still the little guy and that confab. Just a 3 dressed up as a 9.
There are plenty of reasons why ours may seem to cost more than the London or Pittsburgh events. Like I said, until I see an itemized list of how each organizer broke down their expenses, I can't really say why.
2Cdo @ Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:27 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
andyt andyt:
'Comon BL - tell us why Philadelphia can do this for 18 mil and London for 30, but we have to pay 1.1 bil. Just how desperate are we to impress the big boys, and what exactly do we get from that? You think they're going to respect us more because we threw an expensive do? We're still the little guy and that confab. Just a 3 dressed up as a 9.
There are plenty of reasons why ours may seem to cost more than the London or Pittsburgh events. Like I said, until I see an itemized list of how each organizer broke down their expenses, I can't really say why.
I think you nailed it earlier when you stated that some hosts don't include security salaries(police and military) due to the fact that they get paid whether at the conference or not. We included EVERYTHING in our cost estimate, others didn't.
andyt andyt:
Ok,. I get your point. Now address the point that last year's cost 18 million vs our 1.1 billion.
That wasn't the overall cost of last years event, those numbers are what was spent on security. 120 million (2010 Canada) -vs- 13 million (2009 U.S.)
RUEZ RUEZ:
Curtman Curtman:
Previous G20 Conferences:
2009 – United States – $12.2 million
2009 – United Kingdom – $28.6 million
Over a billion dollars worth of questions remaining.
So why are we focusing on a lake?
Perhaps becuase it is an apt metaphor for the larger context.