I KNEW it!!!

[moi]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1486169/

Why am I not surprised?! We are going to PAY for it. We are left in the dust and have to pick up the higher taxes and cuts all in the name of Olympics.

FYI..I never even went there or cheered them on.

[Cateyes]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

[Al Czervic]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/games-over-bc-hits-spending-brakes/article1486169/

Why am I not surprised?! We are going to PAY for it. We are left in the dust and have to pick up the higher taxes and cuts all in the name of Olympics.

FYI..I never even went there or cheered them on.

So how then would you explain the Alberta deficit of $ 6.9 Billion? Or the Ontario Provincial Deficit of $ 24.7 Billion? These Provinces have no Olympics to blame and yet they are far deeper in the deficit hole than B.C. is.

I am wondering if the concept of decreased revenues and increased spending on health and education are aspects of our provincial budgetary picture that you have even bothered to contemplate as being significant and contributory reasons for the B.C. deficit? Health spending continues to escalate at unsustainable rates. Same story for education. Both are becoming bottomless holes with out of control costs increases. Do yourself a favor and take the time to do some research and see just how much more of your money is getting sucked into the black hole of healthcare each and every year.

[Al Czervic]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

[Cateyes]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

So did a magic fairy pay for the Canada Line? If you just ignore that and the other infrastructure and pretend nobody pays for it does that make the other 5-6billion go away as well?

Oy vey....the stupid it burns.

[grammafreddy]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

Absolutely. If it was not on the agenda previous to the games, but became a necessity because of the games, then, yes, it should be considered an Olympic expense.

[NAB]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

I think you must consider timing of the expenditures more than whether they are an Olympic Expense or not Al. As I have said on other occasions, acceleration of a project to accommodate the Olympics carries an extra cost burden which, while the cost of the whole project need not be included, I believe some significant percentage of it needs to be, additional financing costs included. Same with Sea to Sky and numerous other projects that probably would have been done eventually anyway, depending on priorities and affordability.

Edit to add: I think the Greenline would (should) have been a higher priority as a benefit to more of the lower mainlanders and relief of traffic gongestion were it not for the Olympics and wanting a faster and more convenient trip from Richmond and the Airport.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

I think you must consider timing of the expenditures more than whether they are an Olympic Expense or not Al. As I have said on other occasions, acceleration of a project to accommodate the Olympics carries an extra cost burden which, while the cost of the whole project need not be included, I believe some significant percentage of it needs to be, additional financing costs included. Same with Sea to Sky and numerous other projects that probably would have been done eventually anyway, depending on priorities and affordability.

Edit to add: I think the Greenline would (should) have been a higher priority as a benefit to more of the lower mainlanders and relief of traffic gongestion were it not for the Olympics and wanting a faster and more convenient trip from Richmond and the Airport.

Nab

Agreed Nab, but you must also remember that a much greater share of Federal Funding was also made available to help pay for these projects because of the Olympics. Yes, timing is always relevant but so is how our tax dollars come back to us to help pay those bills because of that timing. You have to look at it from both sides.

[Al Czervic]

Absolutely. If it was not on the agenda previous to the games, but became a necessity because of the games, then, yes, it should be considered an Olympic expense.

But it was on the agenda, the only question was when it was going to happen and how it was going to be paid for. Yes, the Olympic accelerated the timeline, but they also delivered MORE of our Federal tax dollars back to us to help pay for that infrastructure that we will now all benefit from.

[NAB]

That didn't take long. Of course they will never ever do or say anything that would link this to the Olympics but if you think for one second that the 9.2 billion dollars spent had nothing to do with this then then you are a fool!

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columb ... tlook.html

The most immediate thing I see are big strikes coming. "Net-zero wage negotiation" has general strike written all over it.

The only way you could come up with a figure of $ 9.2 Billion is if you consider infrastructure like the Canada Line as being an Olympic expense? Do you think public transit with a lifespan of many decades that will benefit a region in many ways should be considered an Olympic expense?

I think you must consider timing of the expenditures more than whether they are an Olympic Expense or not Al. As I have said on other occasions, acceleration of a project to accommodate the Olympics carries an extra cost burden which, while the cost of the whole project need not be included, I believe some significant percentage of it needs to be, additional financing costs included. Same with Sea to Sky and numerous other projects that probably would have been done eventually anyway, depending on priorities and affordability.

Edit to add: I think the Greenline would (should) have been a higher priority as a benefit to more of the lower mainlanders and relief of traffic gongestion were it not for the Olympics and wanting a faster and more convenient trip from Richmond and the Airport.

Nab

Agreed Nab, but you must also remember that a much greater share of Federal Funding was also made available to help pay for these projects because of the Olympics. Yes, timing is always relevant but so is how our tax dollars come back to us to help pay those bills because of that timing. You have to look at it from both sides.

I do try to look at both sides Al, but have difficulty seeing federal funding as being significantly different from provincial funding as to its original source - the same taxpayer, just different pockets.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

I do try to look at both sides Al, but have difficulty seeing federal funding as being significantly different from provincial funding as to its original source - the same taxpayer, just different pockets.

Nab

Exactly, however for a change MORE of the money we pay to the Federal Government came back to the pockets of BC taxpayers instead of those taxpayers of Quebec, the Maritimes or Ontario where it usually ends up.

[NAB]

I do try to look at both sides Al, but have difficulty seeing federal funding as being significantly different from provincial funding as to its original source - the same taxpayer, just different pockets.

Nab

Exactly, however for a change MORE of the money we pay to the Federal Government came back to the pockets of BC taxpayers instead of those taxpayers of Quebec, the Maritimes or Ontario where it usually ends up.

yeah, but over the long run I suspect it all is made to balance out. It depends on short term priorities as to the direction of flow at any point in time.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

I do try to look at both sides Al, but have difficulty seeing federal funding as being significantly different from provincial funding as to its original source - the same taxpayer, just different pockets.

Nab

Exactly, however for a change MORE of the money we pay to the Federal Government came back to the pockets of BC taxpayers instead of those taxpayers of Quebec, the Maritimes or Ontario where it usually ends up.

yeah, but over the long run I suspect it all is made to balance out. It depends on short term priorities as to the direction of flow at any point in time.

Nab

You will never convince me of that. Quebec has been pocketing Billions more out of confederation each and every year. Meanwhile provinces like Alberta in particular have gotten the shaft over and over and over again. Anytime I see some of our federal tax dollars coming back to BC and Alberta to help fund mega projects I let out a huge cheer. But I also credit Harper for that as well and as you know Campbell for not being a Danny Williams and *bleep* off Harper.

[Liberty and Truth]

good debate going here guys - and we are keeping it civil too - which is good to see. I agree with Al here (surprise I know) - so few Federal dollars make it this far out from Ottawa that I am glad when we do get some of the dough. I honestly believe that we'll be seeing the Olympics coming back to Canada sooner than we think - the 2022 Games aren't bid on yet (the 2018 games have three bids in right now but it looks like South Korea is going to get it) and with the huge success of Vancouver as per the ravings of the IOC etc I think we see an Olympic bid come in from Quebec City for either 2022 or 2026. The IOC will want a slam dunk success and they got it with Vancouver, and they'll want it again, and they know now that Canada provides slam dunks when it comes to hosting Olympics - we as a nation get behind it and we get it done right. We are awesome hosts with an uparalleled spirit and that is what drives these games.

[NAB]

I do try to look at both sides Al, but have difficulty seeing federal funding as being significantly different from provincial funding as to its original source - the same taxpayer, just different pockets.

Nab

Exactly, however for a change MORE of the money we pay to the Federal Government came back to the pockets of BC taxpayers instead of those taxpayers of Quebec, the Maritimes or Ontario where it usually ends up.

yeah, but over the long run I suspect it all is made to balance out. It depends on short term priorities as to the direction of flow at any point in time.

Nab

You will never convince me of that. Quebec has been pocketing Billions more out of confederation each and every year. Meanwhile provinces like Alberta in particular have gotten the shaft over and over and over again. Anytime I see some of our federal tax dollars coming back to BC and Alberta to help fund mega projects I let out a huge cheer. But I also credit Harper for that as well and as you know Campbell for not being a Danny Williams and *bleep* off Harper.

You are right on that one Al. I should have made a point of specifically removing Quebec and Newfoundland/Labrador from the equasion when I made that post. Perhaps one or two of the Merrytimes too.

Edit to add: Take a look at the Quebec Debt thread here. Gives you some idea of where that piece of the money pie is going.

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=23972

Nab