the winnipeg sandbox

Latest topics

» Gord Steeves should run for Mayor
by FlyingRat Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:58 pm

» To discontinue?
by EdWin Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:26 pm

» Sandbox breakfast get-together, Saturday, January 25, 2014.
by rosencrentz Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:27 pm

» 2013-14 Bisons/CIS Thread
by Hollywood Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:56 pm

» Katz must resign
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:09 pm

» Best Breakfast/Brunch
by cobragt Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

» Manitoba Action Party
by RogerStrong Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:24 pm

» Police Respond to a silent alarm With Guns Drawn
by EdWin Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:10 pm

» Details about Cineplex SuperTicket -- interesting promotion
by MattKel Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:08 pm

» Freep locks out non-subscriber commentary
by Deank Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:58 pm

» 7-year sentence for Berlusconi
by FlyingRat Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:32 pm

» New Stadium
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:34 pm

» Winnipeg News Android App
by grumpy old man Mon May 27, 2013 4:33 pm

» First Post
by grumpy old man Fri May 24, 2013 2:43 pm

» The New Sals at Pembina and Stafford
by grumpy old man Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:35 pm

» Emma Watson wants to do nude scenes for 50 shades of grey movie
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:39 am

» Museum finally admits it needs to raise more money priovately.
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:32 am

» And You Thought Your Taxes Are High Now!!!
by FlyingRat Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:21 am

» free chocolate sample
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm

» Do you want a gift certificate for A winnipeg restraunt?
by cobragt Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:12 pm


You are not connected. Please login or register

Discussions on how to approach unnecessary new projects...

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Deank


contributor eminence
contributor eminence
Triniman wrote:Here's a crazy idea.

Why doesn't government simply meet its existing obligations first. And if there's money left over, discuss what else could be done with it.

aint gonna happen any time soon.. fricken hughie thinks he is going to take the "savings" from the Bipole thing and spend it on roads.

IT AINT SAVINGS its LESS MONEY BORROWED.

frick and it aint even the same department so what sort of loan rate will it be under?

grumpy old man

avatar
administrator
administrator
JTF wrote:Well, it's a start. Combined with a stop to funding things that are beyond the city's mandate would alleviate the need for another tax increase.

Tax increases are the easy way out anyway....made by people without balls or an imagination.
It's easy to insult but I see zero from you in solutions. What do you recommend happen?


_________________
Yes, I really am that Grumpy...

It's their, they're and there; in Canada it's colour, cheque, rumour and zed...

Triniman

avatar
general-contributor
general-contributor
Deank wrote:
Triniman wrote:Here's a crazy idea.

Why doesn't government simply meet its existing obligations first. And if there's money left over, discuss what else could be done with it.

aint gonna happen any time soon.. fricken hughie thinks he is going to take the "savings" from the Bipole thing and spend it on roads.

IT AINT SAVINGS its LESS MONEY BORROWED.

frick and it aint even the same department so what sort of loan rate will it be under?

All spending is coming out of debt, that is, money that we are expected to pay back sometime in the future. Interest comes with debt. Interest takes away money that could be spent on things that we really need.

I'd rather have more money in my pocket and government pay for things that we really need and have less or no debt, than to be in a constant state of debt that eats away at our prosperity but have "nice things" that we can't afford anyway.

So, yes, less money borrowed is still money borrowed and no politician should forget that.

I see Hughie selling off assets to get us out of debt and wean us off of the teat of transfer payments.

Focusing spending more on our obligations and less on crap that we don't need is better than what the NDP have done.


_________________
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through
our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'



― Isaac Asimov

Outsider

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Triniman wrote:
Deank wrote:
Triniman wrote:Here's a crazy idea.

Why doesn't government simply meet its existing obligations first. And if there's money left over, discuss what else could be done with it.

aint gonna happen any time soon.. fricken hughie thinks he is going to take the "savings" from the Bipole thing and spend it on roads.

IT AINT SAVINGS its LESS MONEY BORROWED.

frick and it aint even the same department so what sort of loan rate will it be under?

All spending is coming out of debt, that is, money that we are expected to pay back sometime in the future. Interest comes with debt. Interest takes away money that could be spent on things that we really need.

I'd rather have more money in my pocket and government pay for things that we really need and have less or no debt, than to be in a constant state of debt that eats away at our prosperity but have "nice things" that we can't afford anyway.

So, yes, less money borrowed is still money borrowed and no politician should forget that.

I see Hughie selling off assets to get us out of debt and wean us off of the teat of transfer payments.

Focusing spending more on our obligations and less on crap that we don't need is better than what the NDP have done.
I don't think the citizens of Manitoba want Hughie to sell off any Manitoba assets like Hydro or the MLCC.
Some people are still mad about MTS being sold.

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
I could do with MLCC sticking around but the MLCC ran liquor stores being closed.

MLCC would make way more money because they would still charge the "resellers" the same but would not have the extremely high costs of running and operating their own stores.

Seems like several retailers outside of large areas can somehow sell liquor.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Guest

avatar
Guest
Dean. We have to fix our roads for chrisake.

The money that would be otherwise wasted on the more expensive route will go to things we need.

It isn't hard to figure out his position....and I trust you are now acquainted with it properly.

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
I trust you are apparently one of those money grubbing morons that think money grows on trees.

It is hard to figure out his position. He is saying. Dont BORROW 600+ million for the bipole. Instead lets spend that NON EXISTENT money on roads.

Its not even a related conversation. One has nothing to do with the other. He is trying to make it like he is fiscally responsible when it is very obvious that he is not.

If he wants to be honest and say.

LETS BORROW 600 million dollars for the roads... fine do that.

To try to lie to me and the rest of manitoba about where the money is coming from.

Tax and spend indeed.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Guest

avatar
Guest
I reckon you are the one that has the problem understanding his position Dean. It's pretty straight forward.

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
no its not JTF

Hughie is saying.. I will take that money and spend it on something else.

There is no money to take.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Mantha

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Dean, all I've seen to reference this is the Free Press article, and it wasn't a direct quote:

vowing to plow the savings into highways, transportation and the development of CentrePort.

Did he actually say he'd put ($600m-cost-of-east-route) in to Centerport and highways? The reporter just used the terms 'savings', which isn't necessarily going to add up to ($600m-cost-of-east-route)...

http://yaciuk.blogspot.com

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
But there are still no savings to be had. Nothing.. nada.. zip..

You cant save what you do not own.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Mantha

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Is the province not already borrowing money for Centerport? Perhaps this just makes that breathing room easier.

Also, if the province has to borrow money regardless, I'd rather they borrowed if for Centerport and not Bipole III.

http://yaciuk.blogspot.com

Livio Ci

avatar
Guest
Agree dean, the money he's going to plow into another "hole" is vapor. I wonder why politicians say more than they have to. i mean, he could have just stopped and said cancel West side, go East side, save 600 Million...nuff said.

Mantha

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Whoah, whoah, whoah...

Why is it that when a politician during an election promises something we DON'T like, that we believe it's going to come true?

Until I see a verbatim quote of what was said, I think we may be overreacting.

http://yaciuk.blogspot.com

Livio Ci

avatar
Guest
no one's overreacting, just repeating what he said. this is non existent money that he wishes to plow into a concept that has changed colors more times than Asper has relocated the stadium.

CentrePort, mmmmm, another make work project which has now become a maquiladora which won't attract many foreign companies to relocate.

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
Mantha wrote:Is the province not already borrowing money for Centerport? Perhaps this just makes that breathing room easier.

Also, if the province has to borrow money regardless, I'd rather they borrowed if for Centerport and not Bipole III.

Different pot of money completely though.


MB hydro is a money making ( I hope) venture that is supposed to be arms length with the Money made from its operations going back into paying for its operations and to keep Hydro rates low for us awesome Manitobans.

If there are surplusses (say from not having to borrow as much money) those go into a rainy day fund to help purchase Hydro from other sources when we dont produce enough.

So technically they are supposed to be completely separate from the "government" so Hydro borrowing money is not the same as "centreport" borrowing money.


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Mantha

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Where did he say it? All I saw was a Freep reporter paraphrasing.

Perhaps he just meant general 'savings' that will result from him being elected, not specific to this.

And also, it could just have been an unfortunate statement made because he wanted to throw the term 'savings' in to reinforce the idea that his party is different than the spend happy government that decided to go west in the first place. Possibly had his own handlers going "whaaaat? we never talked about this!"

Like I say, unless I can see a transcript that has him saying what you think he is, I'm going to wait.

http://yaciuk.blogspot.com

Mantha

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
And again, a politician says he's going to fix all the roads in the province, and we BELIEVE him?!?!

http://yaciuk.blogspot.com

Guest

avatar
Guest
Agree mantha, he may have said just a bit too much. We should focus on the West / East side issue , which is by far, the most important issue

umcrouc0

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
JTF wrote:I reckon you are the one that has the problem understanding his position Dean. It's pretty straight forward.

You're right, it's extremely straightforward. We either borrow $600M and go further into debt, or we don't. By not spending money that we don't have on something, it doesn't mean that we can magically use that money (that we don't have) on something else debt free. I didn't spend $250K that I don't have on a Ferrari yesterday, but that doesn't mean that I suddenly have $250K of extra cash sitting around. You can't spend what you don't have. There's no 'extra' if you're already in the hole, only different amounts of debt. And as Dean pointed out, in different locations. Probably requiring very different forms of financing and repaying considering one is a revenue-generating operation.

umcrouc0

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
JTF wrote:Well, it's a start. Combined with a stop to funding things that are beyond the city's mandate would alleviate the need for another tax increase.

Tax increases are the easy way out anyway....made by people without balls or an imagination.
How so? If we cut the full 'community services' budget, that saves the city about $100M/year. That's just a small fraction of what's needed to deal with our infrastructure deficit. Even if you remove all funding from everything aside from essential services, we aren't even close to making up what's needed. Right now the combined expenses in our operating budget are around around $800M/year. We need what around $700M/year in additional revenue to deal with our infrastructure issues. I don't think you have any idea of what scale we're actually talking about here. Things that are 'beyond the city's mandate' are an entire order of magnitude off of what's needed here. So if you can explain to me how cutting $100M/year out of the city's budget will somehow give up $700M/year, I'm all ears. Otherwise, where do you plan to get the other $600M/year from?

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
" Otherwise, where do you plan to get the other $600M/year from?"

that is easy.. just dont build a western arm bipole every year, we will be rolling in the money then

Razz


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Electrician

avatar
general-contributor
general-contributor
a) I don't think all the money needed for infrastructure would be spent in ONE year, since it would take many years to accomplish the work needed.
b) If some private corporation wants to come and spend THEIR OWN money on their own project, then they're very welcome to do so, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal, and aren't granted tax breaks or other special privileges.
c) I don't see why any private person should have control of a public-funded project, period. If the funds are public, then the revenues should go back to the public.
d) All of the above.


_________________
A new revolutionary Light Rail Transit system is coming to Winnipeg! (Only if I become Mayor)
http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1416203996

umcrouc0

avatar
contributor plus
contributor plus
Deank wrote:" Otherwise, where do you plan to get the other $600M/year from?"

that is easy.. just dont build a western arm bipole every year, we will be rolling in the money then

Razz

Ha. That's it. Problem solved. I guess we can just fund the stadium the same way. Let's not spend money on a $250M stadium, that way we can pay for a $200M stadium and make a profit of $50M. At this rate we won't need to collect taxes at all.

Deank

avatar
contributor eminence
contributor eminence
umcrouc0 for mayor, premier and prime minister!


_________________
Why do we call them fingers if no one has ever seen them fing?

Guest

avatar
Guest
umcrouc0 wrote:

How so? If we cut the full 'community services' budget, that saves the city about $100M/year. That's just a small fraction of what's needed to deal with our infrastructure deficit. Even if you remove all funding from everything aside from essential services, we aren't even close to making up what's needed. Right now the combined expenses in our operating budget are around around $800M/year. We need what around $700M/year in additional revenue to deal with our infrastructure issues. I don't think you have any idea of what scale we're actually talking about here. Things that are 'beyond the city's mandate' are an entire order of magnitude off of what's needed here. So if you can explain to me how cutting $100M/year out of the city's budget will somehow give up $700M/year, I'm all ears. Otherwise, where do you plan to get the other $600M/year from?

Do you really expect to repair our infrastructure in a single year?

And, using your numbers, we can do it in 7 years then. Simple eh.

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum