|
|
|
|
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/3/2009 2:44:57 AM | Here's a thought to you Olympic haters,
Would you object to the Canucks and/or BC Lions leaving town? The Grizzlies already did, and they were owned by the same people who own the Canucks. The BC Lions play at BC Place, which is owned by a crown corperation. So will the Whitecaps.
I really have no interest in sports, but it seems to me that all the special interests groups trying to hijack the Olympics to promote a "waste of money better spent on something else" cause, have had 25 years to do this to BC Place, and nothing has changed.
"BC Place is busy with over 200 event days per year and contributes over $40 million per year in economic benefits to the Province of British Columbia, but it operates at a loss of more than $4 million a year ($10 million in earning and more than $14 million in expenses)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BC_Place_Stadium
In my opinion people are too short sighted about things the government spends money on. Everything has a "create jobs" benefit, and had there been no Olympics, the recession would likely have resulted in more unemployment. Did you hear that they are still having trouble filling positions for it? http://www.theprovince.com/life/2010+Winter+Olympic+jobs+begging/2056441/story.html
Job and Employment rates:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm
"Employment increased for the second consecutive month, up 31,000 in September, driven by large full-time gains. The unemployment rate fell by 0.3 percentage points to 8.4%, the first monthly decline since the beginning of the labour market downturn in the fall of 2008."
Anyway, I don't personally care about the Olympics, but I believe that had Vancouver not won it, we'd have had a net loss off construction jobs, and some real estate developers wouldn't have made money, and everything else would have played exactly how it played out now. It's unrealistic to expect the government to "solve" a homeless, health care, or education problem when it is never going to be solved by the government of the day without taking away peoples rights and freedoms. Anyone want to name a year when these problems didn't exist? | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:07:26 PM | ^Great Post! I could not agree more.
The Olympics may be creating employment and stimulating our economy. I heard that most if not all events may be totally sold out. | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:33:44 PM | <<< Appreciates the years of effort that the athletes put into training, but thinks that the competitions could be held with less fanfare and money spent.
The dichotomy between government saying we have to cut healthcare, long term care, social programs, and then proceeding to spending billions on parties is a very, very,VERY sad reflection on the prioritizing of human needs.
People have the right to civil protest. I think more should. Terrorist tactics only discredit those who would like to protest peacefully though. | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:50:10 PM | It's unrealistic to expect the government to "solve" a homeless, health care, or education problem when it is never going to be solved by the government of the day without taking away peoples rights and freedoms.
Could you please explain what you mean here? I don't want to jump to any conclusions...
Anyone want to name a year when these problems didn't exist?
How is this relevant? Are you saying that in other years, the money was also not spent on these always existing problems? Or that the desire to spend on health care, social programs, etc is not influenced by increased spending in other areas? Are these areas not affected by things such as elections, Olympics, new projects, global events?
| |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:59:47 AM |
It's unrealistic to expect the government to "solve" a homeless, health care, or education problem when it is never going to be solved by the government of the day without taking away peoples rights and freedoms.
Could you please explain what you mean here? I don't want to jump to any conclusions...
What I'm getting at, is that no government has ever solved these problems and never will.
Unless we want the government to start taking people off the street and locking them away, there will always be homeless-by-choice people.
Health care? How much money would the government save on health care if they were an outright ban on smoking, alcolhol, fatty foods and heavily processed foods? How much do they lose on the tax revenue?
Maybe money can be saved on Education if people who "didn't care" were denied it in high school. Save the spaces for students that are there to learn? Oh but education is a right. People have the right to make others who want to learn miserable.
The point being, that these will always be problems that will never be solved. Abandoning personal responsibility and going "the government should/will fix it" and then crying about it when the government does not. It' s just a self-fullfilling prophecy, no government is going to ever improve these issues when they are under pressure to cut costs.
Anyone want to name a year when these problems didn't exist?
How is this relevant? Are you saying that in other years, the money was also not spent on these always existing problems? Or that the desire to spend on health care, social programs, etc is not influenced by increased spending in other areas? Are these areas not affected by things such as elections, Olympics, new projects, global events?
Let's see, off the top of my head what projects or policies in the past have been the target of "waste of money" activism or "tax increases," reverse chronological order:
Under the Liberals:
Olympics 2010 (P3P)
HST 2009 (more tax hikes)
Canada Line 2009 (P3P project)
Gateway project (Bridges)
4 Super-C class ferries 2004-2006 (P3P project)
BC Rail sold 2003 *scandal*
Millenium Line 2002-2006 (underserved)
Hospital closures 2002 (More protests)
BC Tuition unfrozen 2002 (protests)
Welfware time limits 2001-2004
Taxes cut 2001 (but brought back in higher PST and gas taxes)
Under the NDP(1991-2001):
Mental Health plan 1998 (and then didn't fund it)
Fast Ferries Fiaso 1998-2000 *scandal ousting Glen Clark*
Evergreen Line 1999 (oh gee, what happened to that?)
School Board amalgamation 1996 (total failure, and the liberals are now proposing this)
School Tuition frozen, more spaces made (and then didn't fund them)
Bingogate 1996 *scandal ousting Harcourt*
Nursing Jobs cut (1993)
Taxes raised 1991
BC Rail subsidies cut 1991
Social Credit (1986-1991):
Sale of Expo 86 lands *scandal*
Fantasy Gardens *scandal*
Social Credit(1975-1986):
Expo 86 1986 (Science World and Canada Place)
Expo Line 1985
BC Place 1983
NDP (1972-1975)
ICBC 1973
Social credit (1952-1972):
VCC 1965
SFU 1965
UVic 1963
BCIT 1960
Columbia River Treaty (BC Hydro dams) 1961
BC Ferries 1961
BC Rail 1961
Sorry for holes in the timeline, I've been checking the dates of certain hot button events using Wikipedia. At no time has homelessness been addressed in the last 60 years, while the governments of the day have mismanaged health care and education or not funded it after initial efforts. In 2002 the Liberals put in Welfare time limits, and if anything this may have increased homelessness. Weren't some hospitals shutdown for mental health patients?
Just my opinion but the very fact that we only have regime change in BC by having a scandal suggests that BC is all for letting the government run the province into the ground until such things happen. | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:48:47 AM |
does 'homes not games' mean anything? It means you know nothing about how our money is spent. 
Do people actually think the money spent on the Olympics would have been spent on homes or any other pet social problem? | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:54:56 AM | MWI: nice research  ... seriously I appreciate your effort. However, I asked those questions to clarify what you were saying, not to suggest I disagreed with everything you said.
Obviously, the government has not solved many problems, and although I doubt they ever will, there is still hope I don't believe they will because it is the nature of the political/economic system for that not to happen. Long-term planning and commitment to investing in many social programs lasts as long as the next election usually.
Homelessness may not be your best example. There are a percentage of homeless that by choice do not want to be part of mainstream society, and willingly live on the fringe. However, I would bet that most are simply needing assistance: access to resources for mental health, shelter and food. But I am not getting into a homelessness debate unless you start another thread
My point regarding spending was simply that governments come in to power making promises regarding the treatment of the most vulnerable in our communities, and that includes the disabled, the elderly, immigrants, ......... when they don't have a major project on the go, and agree to spend money on much needed programs. What I am saying is that there is never any commitment to most of them. They are window dressing....
There needs to be a better balance, commitment, and more forward thinking so that they can see some gains in these areas. Gains, not solutions take time.
Sheesh there are too many issues to tackle in your last post, re education, health care, homelessness, but that is for another thread. In this one I was only trying to point out that funding that is set aside for social programs should not be the place that the government of the day goes looking for $ to fund the Olympics or any other major project. It isn't okay with me to make promises in these areas and not stand by them.
edit: msg 31 ... same argument. The money was already spent, and then taken away in order to fund these games. We are not just talking about new or future spending here. We are talking about the quality of life of individuals in this province, who make gains in being able to contribute to society or maintain an appropriate level of well-being, whose funding is cut in order to achieve new economic goals. | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:05:25 PM | 'homes not games' doesn't mean anything then i guess.
seemed like an A+ slogan to me, one that illustrates the waste & focuses attention on what really matters.
nobody is arguing against 'homes not games' which means they actually might be on to something. | |
|
| The Olympic Torch
Posted: 11/5/2009 1:46:05 AM |
Long-term planning and commitment to investing in many social programs lasts as long as the next election usually.
Yes, exactly. When the government switches regimes, then all the social programs get axed. Thats what the Liberals did when the NDP was kicked out, and that is what the NDP did to the Socreds programs. The NDP created a lot of union government jobs that the Liberals turn around and axed so they could P3P them.
In this one I was only trying to point out that funding that is set aside for social programs should not be the place that the government of the day goes looking for $ to fund the Olympics or any other major project. It isn't okay with me to make promises in these areas and not stand by them.
Historically, the provincial government promises, but never funds social programs till an election is going to come up, and then if they aren't re-elected they can blame the opposition for cutting. At least it seems that way.
http://www.gov.bc.ca/hsd/
$2.9M HOUSING OPENS FOR SENIORS IN PORT ALBERNI
$10.9M AFFORDABLE HOUSING BREAKS GROUND IN DAWSON CREEK
$9.8M HOMELESS HOUSING PROJECT BREAKS GROUND IN VICTORIA
NEW $4.2M-SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OPENS IN KELOWNA
NEW HOUSING FOR HOMELESS OPENS IN KAMLOOPS
CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY ON GARFIELD HOTEL
PROVINCE FUNDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN WILLIAMS LAKE
PROVINCE PROVIDES $505K FOR RECOVERY HOUSE PURCHASE
NEW HOUSING OPTION FOR PEOPLE AT HOWE SHELTER (Vancouver)
$21.6M DEVELOPMENT CREATES JOBS AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (Vancouver)
So, the government isn't "doing nothing about homeless", just these things aren't making news, just Olympic protests are. Ask any of those protesters if they know about these projects. Unfortunately the government website only goes back to June 2009. Coincidentally the election was in May. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
