RE: Harper's negative ima
Harper quotes
If you have not seen it already do so.
Another interesting read
Harper quotes
If you have not seen it already do so.
Another interesting read
Harper's negative image hurts positive message
- Thread starter hiti
- Start date
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/12/harper-american051212.html
Harper claims to have many differences with the american neocons.aka bushwhacks... :roll:
Harper claims to have many differences with the american neocons.aka bushwhacks... :roll:
You'd have to look that up. You should also look up when they retire, when they are hired, what that hiring process is, what the firing process is, who was transferred, who was promoted, etc.
That's not the politician's job. There are criteria for civil servants to follow and the vast majority of them follow that criteria. There is more over-sight and better checks and balances within the federal civil service than within most of the private sector.
Those aren't differences with the Bush administration so much as an admission that most Canadians don't agree with him.
Reverend Blair said:
You understand, of course, that this is exactly the attitude that is putting the NDP in the trash can.
If Jack Layton had any sense of tactics, he would be gently disagreeing with Harper's policy initiatives, but taking every opportunity to praise Harper as an individual. I'm sure he could do that, I mean he supported Martin, didn't he?
As it is, the NDP are helping the Liberals drive NDP sheep from the NDP fold right into the Liberal fold, using Harper as their switch.
Dumb. Very dumb.
Ok,so I don't trust Harper! I distrust Jack Layton even moreso[guy looks like a used car salesman to me!]
Reverend Blair said:
Hahaha. This is a good one. The private sector has the ultimate check and balance which is the "bottom line". The public sector has no bottom line, hence all the checks and balances are currupted because the bottom line of the individual's pockets who is given the opportunity trumps everything.
Transfers to other public jobs is what happens when they get caught in liue of going to jail or getting fired. It's all corrupt I'm afraid as you know.
Some of the worst I knew were just given "early retirement" packages,and these guys were thieves,pure and simple! I worked for 33 years at Canada Post[got my early retirement the hard way..worked until i was 55! 
]
]RE: Harper's negative ima
The bottom line leads to corruption, iam(not)canadian. Enron and Worldcom are proof of that. The pharmaceutical industry is another example. They've become so untrustworthy that major science mags like Nature have pretty much banned them from publication because they were fixing the results. Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, Tyson, Exxon, Halliburton...all have been complicit in corporate corruption and have spread that corruption to governments all over the world in the name of their bottom lines.
You need to do your homework, iam(not)canadian. You make a lot of wild-ass assertions without ever providing any proof.
It's like your claim that the average Canadian family makes $100,000. According to Stats-Can the average family household income is less than $70,000. You are off by about the same amount that the average single wage earner makes in this country.
The bottom line leads to corruption, iam(not)canadian. Enron and Worldcom are proof of that. The pharmaceutical industry is another example. They've become so untrustworthy that major science mags like Nature have pretty much banned them from publication because they were fixing the results. Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, Tyson, Exxon, Halliburton...all have been complicit in corporate corruption and have spread that corruption to governments all over the world in the name of their bottom lines.
You need to do your homework, iam(not)canadian. You make a lot of wild-ass assertions without ever providing any proof.
It's like your claim that the average Canadian family makes $100,000. According to Stats-Can the average family household income is less than $70,000. You are off by about the same amount that the average single wage earner makes in this country.
Re: RE: Harper's negative ima
The only proof we get from Enron and Worldcom is that when private people get caught being corrupt, they get 40 years in prison after loosing everything they own.
When the same thing occurs in the public sector, they get transfered to another government job someplace away from public scrunity; are allowed to retire and given a golden windfall severance handshake, or at the very worst they get fired (which hardly ever happens) without any personal consequence whatsoever.
Some of our government business departments are tens of times bigger than Worldcom or Enron and its directors manage vastly more sums of money without any personal responsibility or accountability.
Reverend Blair said:
The only proof we get from Enron and Worldcom is that when private people get caught being corrupt, they get 40 years in prison after loosing everything they own.
When the same thing occurs in the public sector, they get transfered to another government job someplace away from public scrunity; are allowed to retire and given a golden windfall severance handshake, or at the very worst they get fired (which hardly ever happens) without any personal consequence whatsoever.
Some of our government business departments are tens of times bigger than Worldcom or Enron and its directors manage vastly more sums of money without any personal responsibility or accountability.
RE: Harper's negative ima
Your ignorance is showing again, iamcanadian. Departments (not business departments) have budgets. Those funds are allocated to regions around the country, then further allocated to projects. In each case there is a manager who is responsible for the money and answerable for the success or failure of projects.
Your ignorance is showing again, iamcanadian. Departments (not business departments) have budgets. Those funds are allocated to regions around the country, then further allocated to projects. In each case there is a manager who is responsible for the money and answerable for the success or failure of projects.
Re: RE: Harper's negative ima
You are advancing a load of crap that is fed to the public.
The systems are designed to approve budgets and then to consume them without question. Once a budget is placed in the hands of administrators, no one looks at it again unless they go over budget.
So if a budget is twice what is needed, it will all be spent one way or another. The Administrators strive to get as high a budget approved for themselves as possible, regardless of the value, and then spend what is approved in their unfettered discretion. They will keep spending money till it runs out regardless of value for the money.
More often than not money is more than necessary and the excess they don't need they find a way to funnel it to their friends who then give them some indirectly.
This is the rule rather than the exception I'm afraid.
There are even structures in the government specifrically to maximise these nafarious practices, which are considered legal simply becase there are no laws against them, such as Regional Government Structures in Ontario. They are designed to maximise the potential for pilferage using the budget model for public spending, rather than a value for service, since they are beyond reach of Auditor General scrutiny. This involves several tens of Billions annually with the Nine Regions of Ontario alone.
Reverend Blair said:
You are advancing a load of crap that is fed to the public.
The systems are designed to approve budgets and then to consume them without question. Once a budget is placed in the hands of administrators, no one looks at it again unless they go over budget.
So if a budget is twice what is needed, it will all be spent one way or another. The Administrators strive to get as high a budget approved for themselves as possible, regardless of the value, and then spend what is approved in their unfettered discretion. They will keep spending money till it runs out regardless of value for the money.
More often than not money is more than necessary and the excess they don't need they find a way to funnel it to their friends who then give them some indirectly.
This is the rule rather than the exception I'm afraid.
There are even structures in the government specifrically to maximise these nafarious practices, which are considered legal simply becase there are no laws against them, such as Regional Government Structures in Ontario. They are designed to maximise the potential for pilferage using the budget model for public spending, rather than a value for service, since they are beyond reach of Auditor General scrutiny. This involves several tens of Billions annually with the Nine Regions of Ontario alone.
Re: RE: Harper's negative ima
True, they do request budgets that go beyond their needs and for example, claim a high overhead to justify it, then remove overhead on budget approval. However, not all budgets are approved, not all programs stay intact, some are merged with other and some are scrapped altogether, because they are too expensive and accomplish vertually nothing. This is a fact, as I've seen it happened often when working at Health Canada.
{quote]There are even structures in the government specifrically to maximise these nafarious practices, which are considered legal simply becase there are no laws against them, such as Regional Government Structures in Ontario. They are designed to maximise the potential for pilferage using the budget model for public spending, rather than a value for service, since they are beyond reach of Auditor General scrutiny. This involves several tens of Billions annually with the Nine Regions of Ontario alone.[/quote]
Links? I'd like to see the budget model, broken down by sector. Is this available at the Queen's park web-site, under "the budget"?
iamcanadian said:
True, they do request budgets that go beyond their needs and for example, claim a high overhead to justify it, then remove overhead on budget approval. However, not all budgets are approved, not all programs stay intact, some are merged with other and some are scrapped altogether, because they are too expensive and accomplish vertually nothing. This is a fact, as I've seen it happened often when working at Health Canada.
{quote]There are even structures in the government specifrically to maximise these nafarious practices, which are considered legal simply becase there are no laws against them, such as Regional Government Structures in Ontario. They are designed to maximise the potential for pilferage using the budget model for public spending, rather than a value for service, since they are beyond reach of Auditor General scrutiny. This involves several tens of Billions annually with the Nine Regions of Ontario alone.[/quote]
Links? I'd like to see the budget model, broken down by sector. Is this available at the Queen's park web-site, under "the budget"?
Sorry, you are wrong. I think what you may be referring to, and you are so far off the way things actually work that it's hard to tell, is that if a department has left over money at the end of the fiscal year, it may see it's budget reduced the following year.
That's same way that many corporations work, including two that I worked for, so to blame it strictly on government is disingenuous at best.
To say that there's no oversight is just plain wrong. It is either a massive misunderstanding or a purposeful mistruth on your part. There are auditors within departments and the auditor general does audit programs and departments. She reports back to Parliament, the opposition as well as the government, with the results of those audits.
There are systems in place to avoid public scrutiny such as downloading services to Regional Level Governments below the Provincial Levels.
The only levels that are subject to Auditor General Audits are Provincial and Federal.
The Municipal Levels do private business level audits like your local plumber might do for his service business. They don't even come close to the level of audit that a Worldcom or Enron that are publicly traded corporations do. They are audited like privately held corporations though they are like a Worldcom or an Enron in effective business size, only without anyone personal responsible for anthing that goes on.
The only levels that are subject to Auditor General Audits are Provincial and Federal.
The Municipal Levels do private business level audits like your local plumber might do for his service business. They don't even come close to the level of audit that a Worldcom or Enron that are publicly traded corporations do. They are audited like privately held corporations though they are like a Worldcom or an Enron in effective business size, only without anyone personal responsible for anthing that goes on.
I've seen it in action too, Jay. In private enterprise. With major corporations. One actually had us flying around full fare for "meetings" so the travel budget wouldn't get cut. Ever fly to Toronto to drink beer, then fly to Calgary to drink beer, then fly back to Winnipeg to drink beer with the guys you were drinking beer with in Toronto and Calgary, all on expense account? That's what it amounted to.
Do ya think that anybody would get away with that in government? Not a hope in hell.
RE: Harper's negative ima
Who do you think paid for all of that travel, Jay? You did if you got your film developed with that company, and being in Southern Ontario you likely have if you own a camera.
Government departments who have to spend money to keep their budgets have to put it into something that will pass an audit. Meetings have to have minutes and be about something. You can't submit a bar bill as a meeting expense...that's the kind of thing that people get fired for.
Who do you think paid for all of that travel, Jay? You did if you got your film developed with that company, and being in Southern Ontario you likely have if you own a camera.
Government departments who have to spend money to keep their budgets have to put it into something that will pass an audit. Meetings have to have minutes and be about something. You can't submit a bar bill as a meeting expense...that's the kind of thing that people get fired for.
That may have been the case in the day fellars but the big corps I've been working for no longer spend money out of there budgets like water now 8O They all run pretty tight ships now even Cominco who has more money than god is pretty cheap on the spending right now .Goverments on the other hand flush tax dollars down the toilet like theres no tomorrow. :x