|
|
|
Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....
- Thread starter Paul
- Start date
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
I just didn't think there was much point. I thought about responding with about exactly the same answer that Rob did, but figured it would be written off as somehow "trolling". Pretty sad that.
I just didn't think there was much point. I thought about responding with about exactly the same answer that Rob did, but figured it would be written off as somehow "trolling". Pretty sad that.
baked
Member
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Nows up to 1.1 Billion, This country is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!
Nows up to 1.1 Billion, This country is a JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
It's a lot of money. Now, is it being spent in the country or outside of the country? In the province or outside of the province?
It's not like the money is being put into a barrel and burned. That money is going into people's pockets. The individual cops pulling extra duty, hotel and restaurant staff, travel agents, airline staff, auto rental companies, limo drivers, consultants, couriers, etc.
Those people are eventually going to be spending the money they earned from their roles in the summit, and odds are good they'll spend most of it locally buying from other local businesses that employ Ontario residents.
So, yes, it's a lot of money but like anything big coming to town, there are huge economic spin-off benefits that work to counterbalance the costs of staging the thing. It's just hard to see that if you're not a direct beneficiary of the thing.
It's a lot of money. Now, is it being spent in the country or outside of the country? In the province or outside of the province?
It's not like the money is being put into a barrel and burned. That money is going into people's pockets. The individual cops pulling extra duty, hotel and restaurant staff, travel agents, airline staff, auto rental companies, limo drivers, consultants, couriers, etc.
Those people are eventually going to be spending the money they earned from their roles in the summit, and odds are good they'll spend most of it locally buying from other local businesses that employ Ontario residents.
So, yes, it's a lot of money but like anything big coming to town, there are huge economic spin-off benefits that work to counterbalance the costs of staging the thing. It's just hard to see that if you're not a direct beneficiary of the thing.
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
I dunno, man. 1 Billion dollars??? I'm sure there will be spikes in local businesses and tourism and all that good stuff...but I seriously doubt we'll come close to seeing any of that 1 billion put back into the system. Even if all goes well; theres very little outbursts of violent protests, people spend freely and visit sites all over Ontario...I'm pretty sure we'll be deep into the red after this affair.
I can't even fathom what they're spending all that money on.
I dunno, man. 1 Billion dollars??? I'm sure there will be spikes in local businesses and tourism and all that good stuff...but I seriously doubt we'll come close to seeing any of that 1 billion put back into the system. Even if all goes well; theres very little outbursts of violent protests, people spend freely and visit sites all over Ontario...I'm pretty sure we'll be deep into the red after this affair.
I can't even fathom what they're spending all that money on.
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
I heard the cost is higher than the Olympics....which was a nearly 3 week event....this is a billion getting blown over a 72 hour event
and what are some of the topics of discussion?
hmmm...bank TAX......carbon TAX
sick and tired of paying large to continually kick my own ***
I heard the cost is higher than the Olympics....which was a nearly 3 week event....this is a billion getting blown over a 72 hour event
and what are some of the topics of discussion?
hmmm...bank TAX......carbon TAX
sick and tired of paying large to continually kick my own ***
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Oh man, you just hit the newest low, as far as you posts.
Common, not everyone is stupid to believe in spin-offs from exorbitant government spending nobody needs. It's inconvenient to understand, but government spending does NOT ultimately create jobs, that's what government wants you to believe and one of the myths of economy. It's not like they are building a bridge (and employing locals along the way) which will stay for generations and will be used by tons of people every day. Get the difference?
How will we, you, me and other people, exactly benefit from miles and miles long concrete fence, build only and only for 48 hrs for a specific reason?? Pls enlighten me.
Anyways, why am I even reacting to your post???
Oh man, you just hit the newest low, as far as you posts.
Common, not everyone is stupid to believe in spin-offs from exorbitant government spending nobody needs. It's inconvenient to understand, but government spending does NOT ultimately create jobs, that's what government wants you to believe and one of the myths of economy. It's not like they are building a bridge (and employing locals along the way) which will stay for generations and will be used by tons of people every day. Get the difference?
How will we, you, me and other people, exactly benefit from miles and miles long concrete fence, build only and only for 48 hrs for a specific reason?? Pls enlighten me.
Anyways, why am I even reacting to your post???
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Historically, they've never agreed to anything significant in the past. It's always only blablabla and it stays that way. The only thing I am looking forward to is Harper getting some heat for the abortions. Can't wait for this one ...
Historically, they've never agreed to anything significant in the past. It's always only blablabla and it stays that way. The only thing I am looking forward to is Harper getting some heat for the abortions. Can't wait for this one ...
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Case in point - people had to be hired to build that fencing, install it, and later to remove it. The fence may only be temporary, but in the meantime those are people earning a wage, people that for all we know might otherwise not have been working given the economic slump or at least of the tail of one that we are in. Yes, a permanent bridge would be better, but it would also be a whole lot more money yet.
I don't know. Reactionary habit?
Case in point - people had to be hired to build that fencing, install it, and later to remove it. The fence may only be temporary, but in the meantime those are people earning a wage, people that for all we know might otherwise not have been working given the economic slump or at least of the tail of one that we are in. Yes, a permanent bridge would be better, but it would also be a whole lot more money yet.
I don't know. Reactionary habit?
roadtoruin
Well-known member
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
anyone who tries to justify spending $1 billion on a 3 day meeting is a ****ing twit. [/ story]
anyone who tries to justify spending $1 billion on a 3 day meeting is a ****ing twit. [/ story]
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Not really at all. The fencing company is loving it, because they've had few bodies on it tied for months, but the investment is terrible for the tax payer. Because the huge benefit of few meant that the masses were short paid greatly on many other things.
I thought the bridge example was clear ....
Not really at all. The fencing company is loving it, because they've had few bodies on it tied for months, but the investment is terrible for the tax payer. Because the huge benefit of few meant that the masses were short paid greatly on many other things.
I thought the bridge example was clear ....
KRFDPSSTI
Banned
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
The general public is paying for this, shouldnt we have some voice in this?
1 billion dollars btw, is that 1,000 million?
Perhaps 1 billion dollars can be spent better then hosting a meeting for a bunch of clowns.
The general public is paying for this, shouldnt we have some voice in this?
1 billion dollars btw, is that 1,000 million?
roadtoruin
Well-known member
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
or perhaps not holding it in the center of the busiest city in canada that requires insane planning and money to secure.
How about using that billion to build a G20 building in some remote location and they can have their satanic orgies or whatever it is they are doing there year after year. Why does it even have to be this travelling circus?
or perhaps not holding it in the center of the busiest city in canada that requires insane planning and money to secure.
How about using that billion to build a G20 building in some remote location and they can have their satanic orgies or whatever it is they are doing there year after year. Why does it even have to be this travelling circus?
roadtoruin
Well-known member
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
or we should go further into debt to hold meetings about how to manage global debt? lol is that what you are suggesting?
or we should go further into debt to hold meetings about how to manage global debt? lol is that what you are suggesting?
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
All the other member countries do the same, at the same level of inconvenience and cost i'm pretty sure.
and it's a traveling circus so that no one country has to bear the burden of hosting all meetings.
The benefits of being a member of the G20 far outweighs the "inconvenience" and "expense" of hosting a meeting every once in a while.
the argument against it is like the "no wind turbines" NIMBY wanks.
Considering that you still have all these questions to ask...do you really think you should be so confident and outspoken in your opinions on the subject?
That is more my point. That people dont even know what the event is about, and what it is meant to accomplish. All they MOSTLY know is what they read in the newspaper. Written by people whose jobs it is to .... sell.... newspapers.....
All the other member countries do the same, at the same level of inconvenience and cost i'm pretty sure.
and it's a traveling circus so that no one country has to bear the burden of hosting all meetings.
The benefits of being a member of the G20 far outweighs the "inconvenience" and "expense" of hosting a meeting every once in a while.
the argument against it is like the "no wind turbines" NIMBY wanks.
Considering that you still have all these questions to ask...do you really think you should be so confident and outspoken in your opinions on the subject?
That is more my point. That people dont even know what the event is about, and what it is meant to accomplish. All they MOSTLY know is what they read in the newspaper. Written by people whose jobs it is to .... sell.... newspapers.....
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Your right. Lets not have a plan. Lets just close our borders and figure it out ourselves.
Way better idea. I'll talk to Mr. Big and see what he thinks. Get back to ya.....
Your right. Lets not have a plan. Lets just close our borders and figure it out ourselves.
Way better idea. I'll talk to Mr. Big and see what he thinks. Get back to ya.....
mma01
Well-known member
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
In addition to the $1B in "anticipated" (when is the last time a government project came in under budget...) cost to taxpayers, there are significant productivity and direct costs being borne by companies in the financial district. Our business cannot afford to have a business disruption and we are invoking our business continuity plans to ship critical workers to our disaster recover sites, bulking up security at our offices and have spent many man hours planning contingencies. The profits made by the firms on bay st have a lot more spill over effect to the rest of economy than extra cash in the hands of police or fence erectors.
Maybe thats hard to see if you're not a direct "beneficiary" of this serious business disruption.
In addition to the $1B in "anticipated" (when is the last time a government project came in under budget...) cost to taxpayers, there are significant productivity and direct costs being borne by companies in the financial district. Our business cannot afford to have a business disruption and we are invoking our business continuity plans to ship critical workers to our disaster recover sites, bulking up security at our offices and have spent many man hours planning contingencies. The profits made by the firms on bay st have a lot more spill over effect to the rest of economy than extra cash in the hands of police or fence erectors.
Maybe thats hard to see if you're not a direct "beneficiary" of this serious business disruption.
Re: Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
I'm sure there are other sources, but this was the first article I found that listed some previous G20 costs: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-security-summit-toews.html
Even taking into account the fact that we're holding 2 meetings back-to-back (why did we do that BTW?), the cost still seems fairly high. I don't even think this is necessarily about Conservative law & order posturing so much as it's about fiscal incompetence (which they pretend to be so darn good at).
I'm sure there are other sources, but this was the first article I found that listed some previous G20 costs: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/05/26/g8-g20-security-summit-toews.html
Even taking into account the fact that we're holding 2 meetings back-to-back (why did we do that BTW?), the cost still seems fairly high. I don't even think this is necessarily about Conservative law & order posturing so much as it's about fiscal incompetence (which they pretend to be so darn good at).
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|