Harper's negative image hurts positive message

[Jay]

Re: 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.

If Kodak sent you all over hells acre for drinks, count your self lucky. It doesn’t happen all the time.

Governments just do it differently. Sure, it might not be drinks. It is probably the $3000.00 laptop you don't need and the accessories to go with it. Maybe it’s that 21" plasma screen so you can do your photo editing, editing that you could do with a 17" LCD....I'm in the right business to know that the waste in government is out of control, and extremely hard to stop.

 

[mrmom2]

Hey Jay you still got those deals on the external harddrives ?

 

[Reverend Blair]

It wasn't Kodak, Jay, it was a profitable company.

Private companies do everything that you accuse the government of doing. They actually do more of it because they give cars etc as perks. The government doesn't do that.

 

[Jay]

External drives? I thought you were talking about internaL drives....

Let me know what you would like and I will get a price for you.

 

[Jay]

It wasn't Kodak, Jay, it was a profitable company.

Private companies do everything that you accuse the government of doing. They actually do more of it because they give cars etc as perks. The government doesn't do that.

I know that you think that corporate money is public money; it isn't. There is a huge difference of accountability between government and private. One is accountable to the tax payer; the other is accountable to a board.

 

[iamcanadian]

Another thing to consider is that private companies are kept in check by survival of the fittest and customers and shareholders with a freewill to buy or invest.

Government business has nothing working in it to keep it clean and honest.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

The point is, and I know you guys are too politically inept and lack the knowledge to understand it, that government has systems and checks and balances and is no less efficient than private enterprise.

Your constant half-assed, ill-informed, and blatantly stupid attacks on government do nothing to improve it. Instead you encourage a culture of paranoia that cripples programs and encourages secrecy.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Harper's negative ima

...that government has systems and checks and balances and is no less efficient than private enterprise.

You must be the only person in Canada that believes this, if in fact you truly do believe it.

 

[Jay]

Well, in my industry, it isn't a secret that come the fiscal year end of the University, there is going to be a pile of money spent on computer equipment they don't need. They do it so budgets don't go down the following budget year. The sad thing is, this money could be better spent on education and the University could be a lot more efficient.

It doesn’t just happen at year end. The equipment being bought by people at the university is over kill for the needs being met.

I reject your assumption that this an "ill-informed, and blatantly stupid attacks on government".

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

Don't they need computers, Jay? Of course they do. Or would you have them using ancient 386's?

Not only do I believe what I say, iam(not)canadian, I know it. I've seen many instances, right there in the news, of the checks and balances catching people who are breaking the rules.

You have yet to issue a single fact to back up any of your assertions. Not a link, not a cogent argument, not a number that can be verified. You are simply repeating a non-fact in hope that if you say the same thing over and over again, people will begin to believe you.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper's negative ima

Don't they need computers, Jay? Of course they do. Or would you have them using ancient 386's?

No Rev, that would be a waste of service dollars for them to be still using 386's. But instead of 3000 dollar laptops, they could be using 1000 dollar laptops. That is 2000 dollars wasted.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

How do you know what they do with their laptops? Maybe they need the extra power, or plan to in the near future. maybe buying the more expensive models allows them increased versatility.

 

[the caracal kid]

on a computer related note, a story in the globe today was about how canadian companies fail to invest in technology to improve productivity (it is merely a guess on my part that this might well extend to the government).

is it not a tad rediculous to make blanket statements about laptop costs and whether or not it is a waste of money? there are many factors in deciding what is the most productive investment in equiptment. Show the numbers that demonstrate how cheaper up-front costs in computers equates to overall greater efficiency.

 

[MMMike]

Governments are hopelessly inefficient! There is very little that they can do right. Only a fool believes they are as efficient as the private sector. They are a necessary evil, and should be kept as small as possible.

 

[iamcanadian]

I remeber on example with PC Juniors. A school board I was involved with found it has $3 Million left over and sent out purchase orders at the last minute to spen it on them to use up the money.

By the time they were delivered IBM had stoped supporting them. No software or supplies and they all sat in closets of all the schools in the board for the next ten years without ever comming out of their boxes.

Just the system being corrupt as usual, and everyone just knew it was all a set up, since they did not have the budget to support them if they were usable after they arrived. They waste money intentionally in such a case all the time.

No one got fired over it.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

Prove it MMMike. You keep making that statement, yet I live in a province with arguably the cheapest electricity on the continent because of a Crown Corporation. Same goes for my auto insurance. The same used to go for my phone rates until MTS was privatized.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Harper's negative ima

Prove it MMMike. You keep making that statement, yet I live in a province with arguably the cheapest electricity on the continent because of a Crown Corporation. Same goes for my auto insurance. The same used to go for my phone rates until MTS was privatized.

That's like saying "prove gravity". It is obvious and accepted by all (except, apparently, you). Maybe, that is cheap electricity despite a Crown Corporation. In my province, successive provincial governments have absolutely ignored or mismanaged electricity supply for decades. Now rates are hitting the roof, and driving out industry. If the system was open to the private sector, no shortage would have developed. Greed is good Rev. Look around you and every single thing you see was researched, developed, packaged shipped by a business. How do you think the government would have done providing all of that to you??

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

The major outage that took out Toronto and so much of the US was caused by private companies, MMMike. They weren't investing in infrastructure because it doesn't produce an instant cash return.

When we had a plough wind take out a major supply line here a few years ago, do you know how long my power was out for? About an hour. Some people didn't lose power at all, others for a much shorter time period.

I named three crown corporations that work, MMMikey. They are more efficient than privat industry.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Harper's negative image hurts positive message

on a computer related note, a story in the globe today was about how canadian companies fail to invest in technology to improve productivity (it is merely a guess on my part that this might well extend to the government).

is it not a tad rediculous to make blanket statements about laptop costs and whether or not it is a waste of money? there are many factors in deciding what is the most productive investment in equiptment. Show the numbers that demonstrate how cheaper up-front costs in computers equates to overall greater efficiency.

I completely agree that technology investment is a good thing for productivity. But to put dual core P4 machines on secretaries desks is over kill, and wasteful. Dumping money into computers at budget time so you can keep your budget defeats the purpose of accountability and need in that department. If it wasn't tax dollars we were dealing with, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if I say that we need to reduce the amount of money being pumped in universities because I know the huge amounts of waste going on, I'm labeled anti education and told I’m needlessly being anti government. It’s BS. It is the waste of government that drives anti government sentiment, not noticing the waste.

If corporations weren't taxed heavily so universities could waste money on computers, they could invest in technology.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Harper's negative ima

Do you know what programs the secretary runs, Jay? Do you know that the computer will stay on her desk and not be moved someplace where the extra power is needed? Do you know if they get a discount for buying so many of one model and are actually saving money by putting that specific model on the secretaries desk? Do you know for sure that you didn't just screw up and give the secretary the wrong computer?