National Emergency: Maintenance of Public Healthcare prompts for Constitutional change!
Bob Mackie
Dear All,
Just thought I'd like to send out a new topic.
I firmly believe that all Canadians are endangered by the current
trend coming from MDs and Premiers alike, that Medicare should be
privitized. Make no mistake...there is a 'slippery slope' element in
the logic that these free-marketeers use. They say 'some' services.
They really mean 'for now,...and then...'
National Emergency! Health of Canadians Imperiled by Greed
We need:
A Nationally administered healthcare program for all Cnandian
citizens. Do away with transfers. Each Canadian gets a National
Medical Services card. Imagine the elimination of duplicate
bureaucracy! Imagine the the guaranteed access where ever you may be
in our great country!
We also need:
A Parliamentary Act that would define the physicians' role in the
National Medical Services...hire them, don't contract to them. Let
them work as the rest of us do. Hourly, with contractual rights and
obligations. With overtime clauses. With program-funded skill level
upgrading. Why this hasn't happened yet is really puzzling.
Anyone agree?
Bob in the Kootenays
Lazarus Long
rwma...@junction.net pontificated in a message to All:
rj> I firmly believe that all Canadians are endangered by the current
rj> trend coming from MDs and Premiers alike, that Medicare should be
rj> privitized. Make no mistake...there is a 'slippery slope' element
rj> in the logic that these free-marketeers use. They say 'some'
rj> services. They really mean 'for now,...and then...'
A conspiracy theory from Mackie?
rj> A Parliamentary Act that would define the physicians' role in the
rj> National Medical Services...hire them, don't contract to them. Let
rj> them work as the rest of us do. Hourly, with contractual rights and
rj> obligations. With overtime clauses. With program-funded skill
rj> level upgrading. Why this hasn't happened yet is really puzzling.
Because as soon as that happens...most of our best physicians
would be getting their green card and heading south.
Just as has happened in many of your favourite comintern
countries.
Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html
Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
... Nationalised Health Care...You can die for free while you wait.
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
|Internet: 2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com
You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to
offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the
amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you
deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of
rendering. In brief, for a low wage, you substitute unemployment. You do
harm all around, with no comparable compensation.
-- Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
Bob Mackie
2-100-1!Lazaru...@rational.vaxxine.com (Lazarus Long) wrote:
/>rwma...@junction.net pontificated in a message to All:
I expected a little more chatter about this posting, and expecting
that it will come in short time, I will dig into Mr. Long's snide
remarks for now
/>rj> I firmly believe that all Canadians are endangered by the
current
/>rj> trend coming from MDs and Premiers alike, that Medicare should
be
/>rj> privitized. Make no mistake...there is a 'slippery slope'
element
/>rj> in the logic that these free-marketeers use. They say 'some'
/>rj> services. They really mean 'for now,...and then...'
> A conspiracy theory from Mackie?
I contend that the above is not a theory, but can be bourne out by the
CMA and BCMA behavour during their recent conventions, and by the
types of remarks made by Klein, for instance. Not a consipiracy, just
pure naked greed.
>rj> A Parliamentary Act that would define the physicians' role in the
>rj> National Medical Services...hire them, don't contract to them. Let
>rj> them work as the rest of us do. Hourly, with contractual rights and
>rj> obligations. With overtime clauses. With program-funded skill
>rj> level upgrading. Why this hasn't happened yet is really puzzling.
> Because as soon as that happens...most of our best physicians
> would be getting their green card and heading south.
> Just as has happened in many of your favourite comintern
> countries.
Bullshit. Prove it.
John Corman
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:23:20 GMT, rwma...@junction.net (Bob Mackie)
wrote:
>I contend that the above is not a theory, but can be bourne out by the
>CMA and BCMA behavour during their recent conventions, and by the
>types of remarks made by Klein, for instance. Not a consipiracy, just
>pure naked greed.
Joy McPhail while being interviewed by Bill Good stated that until the
became a cabinet minister she was not aware that any financial
restraints were being put on governments and felt that it was just a
right wing conspiracy to subjugate the less fortunate. Is it possible
that you also suffer from the McPhail disease and do not recognize
that a country like Canada cannot continue on the welfare slide that
it currently is in?
It should come as no surprise that our medical system is going to be
under attack until such time as we set some priorities. We cannot
guarantee everyone a good life and expect to also provide all the best
medical services. It's as simple as that.
Karl Pollak
jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>Joy McPhail while being interviewed by Bill Good stated that until the
>became a cabinet minister she was not aware that any financial
>restraints were being put on governments and felt that it was just a
>right wing conspiracy to subjugate the less fortunate.
Wow! When did she say that? When did this revelation come to her?
The last I spoke to Mz. McPahil in the summer of '94, she was still of
the opinion that there is nothing the government could not do, that
there is a bottomless source of funds in the taxpayers' pockets, and
that there are poor folks in our society only because the mean nasty
"right-wingers" made them so.
BTW, she had been a cabinet minister then.
Karl Pollak
Richmond, British Columbia
The Lighter Side of Public Transit:
http://www.fraservalley.com/routes
John Corman
On Tue, 17 Sep 1996 17:32:30 GMT, kpo...@portal.ca (Karl Pollak)
wrote:
>jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>
>>Joy McPhail while being interviewed by Bill Good stated that until the
>>became a cabinet minister she was not aware that any financial
>>restraints were being put on governments and felt that it was just a
>>right wing conspiracy to subjugate the less fortunate.
>
>Wow! When did she say that? When did this revelation come to her?
>The last I spoke to Mz. McPahil in the summer of '94, she was still of
>the opinion that there is nothing the government could not do, that
>there is a bottomless source of funds in the taxpayers' pockets, and
>that there are poor folks in our society only because the mean nasty
>"right-wingers" made them so.
>Karl Pollak
==========================================
If memory serves me it was late last year. She even displayed the
ignorance to imply that the fiscal restraints were something that she
and she alone had just discovered.
Consider that the woman's whole reason for being for the last decade
was to chastise governments for not spending enough and she, with a
straight face can now say. Oops, time to change directions, but trust
me as I learn something.
We are unfortunately saddled with the most ignorant group of
politicians to ever have the bridles of power in the country and we
are about to pay a very heavy price for our mistake.
John R. Shaw
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996 15:10:46 GMT, rwma...@junction.net (Bob Mackie)
wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>Just thought I'd like to send out a new topic.
>
Just for a second I though there may be something new, and then what
is there, same old crap.
sandy
jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>We are unfortunately saddled with the most ignorant group of
>politicians to ever have the bridles of power in the country
The most ignorant group of politicians in the country got there
because the most ignorant group of voters in the country got them
there.
>and we are about to pay a very heavy price for our mistake.
You didn't vote for these scums, so it's not your mistake, just as it
is not your mistake if a drunk crossed the road and hit you.
You will be hurt, for sure, in both cases.
sandy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Delusion is the opiate of socialists.
John Corman
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:22:40 GMT, san...@cyberstore.ca (sandy) wrote:
>The most ignorant group of politicians in the country got there
>because the most ignorant group of voters in the country got them
>there.
What is truly amazing about this group of cabinet ministers is their
ability to continuing lying or retreat on promises without a second
thought.
We have Miller sounding perplexed at the concern about the theft of
the forest renewal funds after his solemn promise that this would
never happen in our lifetime.
We have Glenochio sounding as though the budget discrepancies were
someone else's fault and Petter the clown stating to all who will
listen that he knew nothing.
I guess that in socialist parlance, only what I say today is relevant.
Karl Pollak
jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>What is truly amazing about this group of cabinet ministers is their
>ability to continuing lying or retreat on promises without a second
>thought.
Oh gosh, goleee, you should have heard deputy premier Georghetti on
the Rafe Mair show today. The guy was absolutely hillarious!
"Glen Clark does not lie", said Ken McPhail, "I'll say it six times,
Glen Clark does not lie, Glen Clark does not lie, Glen Clark does not
lie, ...."
I was truly expecting him to roll on the floor and pound the carpet
with his fists when he said that.
>We have Miller sounding perplexed at the concern about the theft of
>the forest renewal funds after his solemn promise that this would
>never happen in our lifetime.
Well, Shadow Premier Ken had an "explanation" for that as well. You
see, it is not Forest Renewal money anymore, it is not forest industry
money, it is not the "taxpayers' money" and it must be used in order
to balance the budget, because you cannot sit on this money on one
hand and go and borrow $700 million on the other.
I mean, to simple minds like the Pink Brigades, that probably makes a
lot of sense. But those of us who can actually think for ourselves
realize the following:
1, this is not a regular tax which is directed into the Consolidated
Revenue Fund. This levy is collected into a Special Purpose Fund (by
the authority of the Legislature) for a specific purpose.
Consequently, it belongs to the Forest Renewal Fund and must at all
times be kept apart from all other financial resources of the
province. It is a form of trust, not general revenue as regular taxes
are. As such, it cannot legally be used for any purpose other that
for which it was collected.
Imagine the uproar if a hospital had a fundraising drive to build a
rehabilitation camp for kids and when they collected enough dough
decided to build an employee parking garage instead! The directors of
the hospital would be in jail in about 10 minutes flat.
What the Socialist goons in Victoria are doing is no different.
But the best part of that show for me was when Sleazy Ken had the
unmitigated gall to declare that "this is not what the Socreds did
with the BS fund".
In fact, it is precisely what they did. Except that the SoCreds at
least had enough honesty to collect the money for that particular
purpose and to call it the "Budget Stabilization Fund". Saving money
for future budgetary shortfalls was the entire purpose of the Socred
BS fund.
2, Georghetti claims that there is more money in the fund that the
government is able to spend on that program.
My gawd, what a pile of bullshit!! I have never seen a government
that couldn't spend far more than it had brought in, and the NDP
governments we've had in the last little while have been a shining
example of that. The need to raid the Forest Renewal fund came about
exactly because this NDP government is spending far more than it
brings in.
But even if his claims were true, it should serve as a hint to the
government that the levy they have set for the Forest fund is too high
and they have no need to collect as much money from the producers in
the first place. In turn, it would enable the forest companies to
employ a few more forest workers. Not very many, but hey, every
single job counts.
3, The Shadow Premier feels that the fact that the government is in
the hole by $700 million only 3 months after it presented its bogus
'96 "balanced" budget for the second time, presents no problem at all
as long as there is another source of money somewhere else in the
public sector that can be tapped to make up the difference. It has
apparently never occured to him that the government could actually cut
its own expenses and not run up the deficit in the first place.
>We have Glenochio sounding as though the budget discrepancies were
>someone else's fault and Petter the clown stating to all who will
>listen that he knew nothing.
>I guess that in socialist parlance, only what I say today is relevant.
Must be, because there is a signed memo written by Petter to Cull in
February '96, advising Cull that forest revenues will be down,
significantly below the budgeted projections. It has recently
surfaced in public.
But I still don't hear any of the resident Pinkoids have the decency
to come out and say "OK, boys, you got us on this one, Cull and Petter
did in fact lie to us. They knew for a fact months ago that there
will be a hole in the budget but both of them presented budgets
showing a $16 million surplus for the previous year even though both
of them knew that it was not true."
But that's ok, I wouldn't expect them to show any trace of common
decency if their pathetic lives depended on it.
John Corman
On Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:15:15 GMT, kpo...@portal.ca (Karl Pollak)
wrote:
>But the best part of that show for me was when Sleazy Ken had the
>unmitigated gall to declare that "this is not what the Socreds did
>with the BS fund".
>In fact, it is precisely what they did. Except that the SoCreds at
>least had enough honesty to collect the money for that particular
>purpose and to call it the "Budget Stabilization Fund". Saving money
>for future budgetary shortfalls was the entire purpose of the Socred
>BS fund.
I've also seen posts by Smelser and others where they reiterate this
perception by the socialists that the BS fund was, in some way,
deceptive and even similar to the NDP's hiding expenses in the BC21
sham.
There are two possible scenarios here and both very troubling when you
consider that they now have the keys to the vault. The first is that
they don't understand the difference and the second is that they do
but don't give a damn about their credibility.
Cook
In article <324071ee...@news.island.net>, jco...@island.net (John
Corman) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:22:40 GMT, san...@cyberstore.ca (sandy) wrote:
> >The most ignorant group of politicians in the country got there
> >because the most ignorant group of voters in the country got them
> >there.
> =============================================
> What is truly amazing about this group of cabinet ministers is their
> ability to continuing lying or retreat on promises without a second
> thought.
> We have Miller sounding perplexed at the concern about the theft of
> the forest renewal funds after his solemn promise that this would
> never happen in our lifetime.
> We have Glenochio sounding as though the budget discrepancies were
> someone else's fault and Petter the clown stating to all who will
> listen that he knew nothing.
> I guess that in socialist parlance, only what I say today is relevant.
What we are really witnessing is government run by former union
"executives". Their whole approach to every situation is dictated by the
concepts of Saul Alinski. The idea of actually telling the truth about
any situation is simply a concept they cannot understand.
The first NDP government under Dave Barrett was run by a group of
socialist incompetants who believed they had a better way. This government
is run by a group of skilled liars who understand that very few of their
constituents can understand the difference. They simple don't care about
those who understand the lies because the NDP can never count on their
vote. The current group, like union leaders are only interested in power.
--
cook
D. Rodney Smelser
co...@dowco.com (Cook) wrote:
>What we are really witnessing is government run by former union
>"executives". Their whole approach to every situation is dictated by the
>concepts of Saul Alinski. The idea of actually telling the truth about
>any situation is simply a concept they cannot understand.
>The first NDP government under Dave Barrett was run by a group of
>socialist incompetants who believed they had a better way. This government
>is run by a group of skilled liars who understand that very few of their
>constituents can understand the difference. They simple don't care about
>those who understand the lies because the NDP can never count on their
>vote. The current group, like union leaders are only interested in power.
I have read your posting, Cook, and I have come to the following
conclusion:
You are a an exceedingly dishonest person yourself, and you try to find
that same fault in others, especially those you dislike. You are
contemptuous of working people in general, and are violently opposed to
organized labour in particular.
Rod
sandy
jco...@island.net (John Corman) wrote:
>There are two possible scenarios here and both very troubling when you
>consider that they now have the keys to the vault. The first is that
>they don't understand the difference and the second is that they do
>but don't give a damn about their credibility.
A third, and more benign, possibility is that they are all deluded.
sandy
co...@dowco.com (Cook) wrote:
>What we are really witnessing is government run by former union
>"executives".
Some of them goons.
>The idea of actually telling the truth about
>any situation is simply a concept they cannot understand.
You have to have a warped mind to believe that forcing people to
belong to your organization before he can offer his labour for sale is
not the same as extortion by Gangs.
>This government is run by a group of skilled liars
Brazen liars, rather.
>who understand that very few of their constituents can understand the difference.
You are talking about Smelser and Ranta, aren't you ?
John Corman
On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 02:25:56 GMT, co...@dowco.com (Cook) wrote:
>What we are really witnessing is government run by former union
>any situation is simply a concept they cannot understand.
>socialist incompetants who believed they had a better way. This government
>is run by a group of skilled liars who understand that very few of their
>constituents can understand the difference. They simple don't care about
>those who understand the lies because the NDP can never count on their
>vote. The current group, like union leaders are only interested in power.
I am in complete agreement with that assessment. In the spring, Clark
put on is "job action" hat and decided that a balanced budget was
needed to turn the tide. Presto, a balanced budget. The facts are
not necessarily of prime importance to Glenochio, particularly when
winning or losing is at stake.
Rick Waters
In article <52764v$8...@fountain.mindlink.net>, "D. Rodney Smelser"
<rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
> co...@dowco.com (Cook) wrote:
>
>
> >What we are really witnessing is government run by former union
> >"executives". Their whole approach to every situation is dictated by the
> >concepts of Saul Alinski. The idea of actually telling the truth about
> >any situation is simply a concept they cannot understand.
> >The first NDP government under Dave Barrett was run by a group of
> >socialist incompetants who believed they had a better way. This government
> >is run by a group of skilled liars who understand that very few of their
> >constituents can understand the difference. They simple don't care about
> >those who understand the lies because the NDP can never count on their
> >vote. The current group, like union leaders are only interested in power.
>
>
> I have read your posting, Cook, and I have come to the following
> conclusion:
>
> You are a an exceedingly dishonest person yourself, and you try to find
> that same fault in others, especially those you dislike. You are
> contemptuous of working people in general, and are violently opposed to
> organized labour in particular.
>
>
> Rod
Funny, that's the same conclusion I reached. It is obvious that Cook,
another of those sleazy rightoids, is determined to ensure that working
people are perpetually denied a fair share of the fruits of their labour.
Cook, probably a wealthy resident of the North Shore or the West Side, is
obviously motivated only by greed, and a desire to escape paying his share
of taxes.
It is clear from his post that he despises welfare, and that he would
rather let the poor starve in the streets. It is also clear that he
opposes the minimum wage laws, believing that it is possible to raise a
family and buy a house on wages of less that $7 per hour. Equally clear is
his advocacy of poor houses, work houses, and sweat shops.
His opposition to the notion of working organizing into unions is
obviously based on his belief in the value of the class system.
Thank you Smelser for allowing me to interpret Cook's post. Without your
help, I'd have thought he was taling about BC Politics, specifically about
the credibility of the current NDP administration.
-Rick
D. Rodney Smelser
You'd have thought no such thing, Rick. You'd have agreed with Cook
becuase you share his attitudes. If the posting were about BC politics,
then who, may I ask, is Saul Alinsky?
Rod
Rick Waters
In article <529fdn$k...@fountain.mindlink.net>, "D. Rodney Smelser"
<rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
Clipped lots.
>
> You'd have thought no such thing, Rick. You'd have agreed with Cook
> becuase you share his attitudes. If the posting were about BC politics,
> then who, may I ask, is Saul Alinsky?
>
>
> Rod
Well, Rod, I *do* know who Saul Alinsky is, and why Cook mentioned him in
the post. How about you? Who *is* Saul Alinsky?
Rod, I do not have an attitude, or a collection of attitudes. How about
you? I, like most other people in this group, just seek the truth. How
about you, Rod?
-Rick
D. Rodney Smelser
rwa...@wimsey.com (Rick Waters) wrote:
>Well, Rod, I *do* know who Saul Alinsky is, and why Cook mentioned him in
>the post. How about you? Who *is* Saul Alinsky?
No, tell me. Whoever he is, I have never heard of anyone by that name in
connection with BC politics, in any party. Have you?
Rod
Rick Waters
In article <52boqn$q...@fountain.mindlink.net>, "D. Rodney Smelser"
<rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
Saul Alinsky is a professional activist, quite well known. He came to
prominence in the late 60s, and advocates practical solutions for groups
such as aboriginals, who have some political objective they are having
trouble achieving.
He advocated using whatever means were necessary to achieve the ends. EG:
Natives should use the same tactics that whites used to make the legal
system produce the result desired.
Lying, such as we have seen Clark and Petter do recently in connection
with the budget/election, is a typical tactic that Alinsky might suggest.
It worked.
for more info on Alinsky, your public library ought to provide a wealth of
information. He might even be found using a Web Search.
-Rick
D. Rodney Smelser
rwa...@wimsey.com (Rick Waters) wrote:
>In article <52boqn$q...@fountain.mindlink.net>, "D. Rodney Smelser"
><rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>> rwa...@wimsey.com (Rick Waters) wrote:
>>
>> >Well, Rod, I *do* know who Saul Alinsky is, and why Cook mentioned him in
>> >the post. How about you? Who *is* Saul Alinsky?
>>
>>
>> No, tell me. Whoever he is, I have never heard of anyone by that name in
>> connection with BC politics, in any party. Have you?
>>
>>
>> Rod
>
>Saul Alinsky is a professional activist, quite well known. He came to
>prominence in the late 60s, and advocates practical solutions for groups
>such as aboriginals, who have some political objective they are having
>trouble achieving.
What is his connection to BC politics?
>He advocated using whatever means were necessary to achieve the ends. EG:
>Natives should use the same tactics that whites used to make the legal
>system produce the result desired.
I gather, from the rest of what you have to say, that you regard this guy
Alinsky and his theories as repugnant and odious. If that is the
case, can the reader infer that you consider it an odious and
repugnant tactic for Natives to use the same tactics that whites use to
make the legal system produce the results that they desire?
>Lying, such as we have seen Clark and Petter do recently in connection
>with the budget/election, is a typical tactic that Alinsky might suggest.
Clark and Petter have not lied about anything, and you know it. It is a
bare-faced and cowardly lie for you to repeat this libellous allegation.
>It worked.
I think that what happened in the provincial election, as one of the
Liberals strategists who now is the news director for a Kelowna radio
station has said (no indication of media bias in that hiring decision, is
there?), is that the NDP suceeded in defining Gordon Campbell as an
uncaring spokesperson for the priveleged. As I have said before, it
turned out that there were at least as many people worried about Yuppies
as there were people concerned about labour.
>for more info on Alinsky, your public library ought to provide a wealth of
>information. He might even be found using a Web Search.
Well, I am sure there is stuff in the Library. But why should I be
interested? You still haven't told me what Alinsky's connection to BC or
Canadian politics might be.
Rod
Nick M. Walsh
D. Rodney Smelser wrote:
> Clark and Petter have not lied about anything, and you know it. It is a
> bare-faced and cowardly lie for you to repeat this libellous allegation.
>
> Rod
Rod! Give your head a shake man. A friend told me a columnist in
Victoria yesterday said he thought the whole NDP expectation prior to
the election was that they would lose. There is no question in my mind
they knew the full extent of their economic termoil. I know that in
people trying to get work in my department were told "forget it". There
was no money left and that was back in September/October 1995! The
government clearly knew back then that the kitty was empty. They were
desparate, and still are, to slash everything they can from the
operating budget. Just walk into any office and ask some questions.
Use the FOI to access budget documents from last year, then this year.
You will quickly see what they have done. Anyway...that is NOT is
dispute.
I think it would be wise at this time to call for interested parties to
organize riding by riding, rather like an election, to excercise recall
on these bufoons. Just in case the current court case, and those
planned next, to render invalid the election results falls upon "slow
times", it would be nice to be organized on several fronts.
Any takers?
Karl Pollak
"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>>Lying, such as we have seen Clark and Petter do recently in connection
>>with the budget/election, is a typical tactic that Alinsky might suggest.
>Clark and Petter have not lied about anything, and you know it. It is a
>bare-faced and cowardly lie for you to repeat this libellous allegation.
Which planet do you live on, Comrade? The proof is incontravertible.
Several memos signed personally by then Forestry Minister Petter in
February and March of this year warn then Finance Minister Cull that
there will be a significant shortfall of forestry revenues compared to
revenues forecast in her March 1995 budget.
She chose to ignore that advice and reported figures which she was
told by her own collegues would not materialize. What is worse, she
crowed about a balanced budget after having been told and knowing that
it was not true. She repeated her false statements in her 1996 Budget
Speech.
If that was not enough, following the election, the Premier and his
Finance Minister Petter had shamelessly lied to the Lt. Governor when
they wrote in the Throne Speech "you will shortly receive the second
balanced budget in the row". By then, both the Premier and the
Finance Minister knew WITH CERTAINTY that that statement was false.
Their despicable deceptions have caused the Lt. Governor to utter
falsehoods in his Throne Speech.
It was not true then and it is not true now. In fact, the Clark
government is so deep in deficit a mere 3 months after they presented
their second fraudulent budget in a row, that they feel it necessary
to commit theft or, if you prefer, breach of trust and a gross
misappropriation of public funds to cover a $700 MILLION hole in their
sorry socialist asses.
Please note that I have left out the utter dishonesty of their
statements during the election campaign.
>I think that what happened in the provincial election, as one of the
>Liberals strategists who now is the news director for a Kelowna radio
For pete's sakes, Rodney, there you go "thinking" again. Please cease
and desist. You're are clearly not equipped for such strenuous
activity.
Karl Pollak <kpo...@portal.ca>
Richmond, British Columbia
The Lighter Side of Public Transit:
http://www.fraservalley.com/routes
CKNW Radio Cool Site of the Week
Bob Mackie
>Which planet do you live on, Comrade? The proof is incontravertible.
>Several memos signed personally by then Forestry Minister Petter in
>February and March of this year warn then Finance Minister Cull that
>there will be a significant shortfall of forestry revenues compared to
>revenues forecast in her March 1995 budget.
>Karl Pollak <kpo...@portal.ca>
C'mon Karl. There was a clear choice of which way to go back in
March. The forecast that predicted doom and gloom was based on the
opinion that if the forest sector part of the economy did not pick up,
then there would be a shortfall. The more optomistic forecast
compared the revenues of the previous years and predicted that the
forestry, newsprint and pulp revenues were in a bit of a slump but
should recover. However they didn't and the guess was wrong. Ever
buy penny stocks on the VSE? Not that BC's budget should be based on
VSE quotations, but when you've got major bond rating agencies backing
you up, wouldn't you tend to see the brighter side? I would. Hind
sight is 20/20. You know that. It's too bad that the spending freeze
is on, it's too bad that FR BC (which is not just NDP hacks BTW, but
industry big wigs, too) unaimously agreed to share out some of the
boodle they'd not expected to accumulate so fast. Harcourt should
never have promised to keep all that dough in the FR BC bank in the
first place. I feel that was where the mistake was made. That money
should have been proportioned out in the first place, with a manditory
operating ratio in the bank ($500 Million?) before surplus funds were
paid into the treasury. Sound too pro-Gov't? Too bad, it has to
happen anyway.
Bob in the Kootenays
sandy
"D. Rodney Smelser" <rod_s...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>Clark and Petter have not lied about anything,
Of course they have NOT LIED ! They just have a "modified perception
of truth."
In addition to fantasy, is denial another of your passtimes ?
>and you know it.
Mind-reading yet another passtime ?
sandy
============================================================
"Given the long-standing failure of this government to tell
the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does
anybody really believe that this promise will last more than
the two or three weeks..."
"Honourable" Glen Clark, March,1991
Karl Pollak
rwma...@junction.net (Bob Mackie) wrote:
>Hind
>sight is 20/20. You know that.
That's just it, Comrade Bob, there is no need for hind sight. I have
been saying the same thing consistently since March '95 when the first
Cull fantasy was published.
You were not listening back thenm and you are still not listening now.
Hey, it's a free country, you can live in any sick, deluded fantasy
you choose. I prefer reality.
>Harcourt should
>never have promised to keep all that dough in the FR BC bank in the
>first place. I feel that was where the mistake was made.
Perhaps so, but not particularly relevant. If this were to become a
regular practice, then there is not a single word a government utters
that the voters can believe.
>That money
>should have been proportioned out in the first place, with a manditory
>operating ratio in the bank ($500 Million?) before surplus funds were
>paid into the treasury. Sound too pro-Gov't? Too bad, it has to
>happen anyway.
Should have, could have, might have has nothing to do with anything.
The government has broken its promise. They swore up and down that
they would not touch that money and a mere year and a half later they
have their hands into the cookie jar, up to their elbows.
They are a bunch of liars.
End of debate.