Gordon Campbell please retire now. With all the work you've done for big business you deserve it.

Why would Gordon Campbell think that anyone in this Province cares what he has to say. We have heard this old diatribe, over, and over, and over.

When he talks about BC he means the Lower Mainland, who of course were the main beneficiaries of any benefits from these Olympics,.

Anyone remember the Olypic Games In Turin Italy, in 2006??? Wonder how they are making out. Must be millions of dollars in investment, etc;etc;etc;.

Anyone want to comment on Prince George's **Team Torino** trip to Turin Italy, that cost us approx $36,000.00 and was supposed to get Atheletes training here for the 2010 Olympics.

Better still, anyone want to give us a list of the atheletes training in Prince George, what sports they are representing, and how long they have been here.,

This information is required by all the people who posted in these sites, and stated that the trips, etc;, were all a bunch of BS, and nothing would come of it.

You remember, the people who are always referred to as **negative**

Gordo is full of confidence! Just look at the pay raise he gave himself, plus benefits.

"Everyone can still depend on an excellent health care system."

Really?

I have been waiting for surgery for over four years, and just recently the surgery was reduced by 60%. Yes, very dependable, I don't think. So, lets have guesses, will I get the surgery first or will I die first?

I'm beginning to think it will be the latter.

Quit being so grumpy...things could be a lot worse! BC is a pretty great place to live!

BC was better before Campbell and it will be better with him gone. He's done nothing to improve the lives of ordinary BC'ers and in fact has made it more expensive to live here with less services. You want a doctor in the interior? Good luck, you might as well buy lottery tickets.

I don't believe anything this guy says or writes.
It took until 2008 to pay the bills for Montreal's 1976 Olympics. The BC bid listed security costs at $175 million even though Turin spent $2 billion.
Campbell and his party have stuck us with a debt that will have a detrimental on the lives of British Columbians impact for years.

Sure he is looking up, taxes up, carbon tax going up, HST coming.

Blah blah.
Campbell is so lucky that he has good competent people like Bond and Bell who are maintaining some credibility within the party. It must be awkward to be an ethical and hardworking MLA under the current leadership.

What 'credibility' are the "good, competent people like Bond and Bell" maintaining, dnakamura?

Overwhelmingly the people of BC have expressed themselves that they are against the HST. Do their Liberal MLAs carry that message to the Premier? Loud and clear? As I'm certain it has been expressed to them in far more certain terms by a far larger number of their constituents than those few bleating continually about 'climate change'.

Are they "our" representatives? Or are they so worried about their own positions and plums within the Party heirarchy that they're scared to even whisper any public objection to the wishes of "fearless Leader"?

The measure of success of any government should be whether our 'standard of living' has increased relative to our 'cost of living'.

Under Campbell the latter has continually exceeded the former. And we haven't even begun to pay for the Olympics formally yet. Though we've certainly already paid for them informally through the rise in prices they've had a large role in engendering over the last nine years.

Free Press, Wednesday, December 16 2009 Page A12
Cambell off to Copenhagen talks

Premier Gordon Cambell heads to the United Nations climate conference in Denmark this week to talk up B.C.'s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Cambell will be in Copenhagen Dec. 14 to 16.

Cambell will be a keynote speaker at a Dec. 14 session hosted by the International Carbon Action Partnership, dealing with the outlook for 2010. In an interview at his Victoria office Tuesday, Cambell said there is no need to wait for "global unanimity" on climate change, because many of the actions that need to be taken are at the local and even the individual level.

Most B.C. residents already know what 2010 holds for them, an increase in the carbon tax on fossil fuels. Effective July 1, the carbon tax on gasoline rises to 3.5 cents a liter, with increases to diesel, aviation fuels, natural gas and coal taxes based on their carbon content.

Cambell said he expects B.C. residents will accept the changes, although they won't be happy. "I don't expect that people are going to be cheering," he said, but with both the carbon tax and the HST, they should remember the government isn't gaining revenues.

Mr. Cambell, with all do respect. Just how do you sleep at night? I would like to know exactly how taxing the resisdents of B.C. is going to help with this so called climate change. Just exactly WHERE is all this money going? Since the Liberals got in, all you've ever givin us is TAX and MORE TAX! GST, 2.0 cents on gasoline, now HST, another gimmick 3.5 cents carbon tax. Will it ever end? In Prince George all our city taxes are going up. It seems it will become virtually impossible to live in this provice any longer. The only sane thing I can think of is to write a letter to Mr. Harper, asking him to review your political tactics and inhumane policy's. I will be pleading Mr. Harper to have you fired. I absolutely have no respect for you Gordon Cambell. You are heartless, and have no business running this province.

Don't tell me the Free Press mis-spelled Campbell that many times.

And don't tell me things would be wonderful if we had the NDP in power.

No one is telling you "things would be wonderful" if we had the NDP back in power, Mr. PG.

They have the same problem the BC Liberals have, only instead of a 'cult of personality' around "fearless Leader", who seems to do ALL their thinking for them, they have a 'cult of Party'.

Where those NDP MLA's who would otherwise be their Party's best "representatives" (of the PEOPLE), seem to have tremendous difficulty countering some "Party" position when their constituents are clearly telling them it's wrong.

We would have to go back a long ways in our history to find a time when elected MLAs were truly able to freely be "representatives" of the people who elected them. And whose taxes pay their salaries.

How long would a MLA like Omineca's late Cyril Shelford in the WAC Bennett era last in Gordon Campbell's Liberal Party if he publicly took on "Big Oil" over their gasoline pricing practices?

And he is only one of a number of MLAs in the Socred caucus of those years that regularly lambasted their own Administration for not doing something about issues of concern to their constituents.

Some even voted against their own Government on issues where they felt it was wrong.

Were they given the same kind of treatment that befell the former BC Liberal MLA up here who dared to openly question and challenge "fearless Leader's" agenda for BC Hydro? Summarilly booted out of the Liberal caucus for simply doing what he should have been doing ~ expressing the very likely concerns of his constituents? They were NOT.

We have a de facto dictatorship here in BC under Gordon Campbell. He is NOT "our" Premier, he, and his profusion of 'innovative' new taxes, are simply apologists for the dictates of 'High Finance'.

How ironic that those who would ever believe he who once preached so convincingly, (and correctly), that, "Tax cuts work!", have been so blind to the reality that overall we haven't had any! Just the opposite. We're paying more and getting less than we ever were.

It is no longer an "either/or" situation between who's worse, the BC Liberals or the NDP. It's time to take a thorough look at the whole business of how we finance government, and just WHO is benefitting the most from our increasing impoverishment through taxation.

"How ironic that those who would ever believe he who once preached so convincingly, (and correctly), that, "Tax cuts work!", have been so blind to the reality that overall we haven't had any! Just the opposite. We're paying more and getting less than we ever were. "

Well, there is that little thing called the global financial crisis which has caused a few problems... not sure if you've heard of it. BC doesn't operate in a bubble. This has affected all governments (and people) everywhere.

-----------------

"It is no longer an "either/or" situation between who's worse, the BC Liberals or the NDP. It's time to take a thorough look at the whole business of how we finance government, and just WHO is benefitting the most from our increasing impoverishment through taxation."

But it is an either/or situation. This is how our electorial system works. It's all fine to have these grand visions about how you would like to see things, but the reality is that we live under this system.

When the next election comes along, we will have to make a choice again (well, less than half of us will, anyway).

Mr. PG, most of endless increases in the litany of tax and fee extractions impressed upon us by the Gordon Campbell regime took place well in advance of the "global financial crisis."

Have we so soon forgotten? Apparently many have.

I could list them here, but such a rejoinder would only elicit the standard response, "Well, he didn't know how bad things really had gotten under ten years of NDP mismanagement until he got into office and opened the books." It's a nice excuse, but it just doesn't wash.

We elected him, at least the majority of voters who put the BC Liberals into such a commanding position in the Legislature in 2001 did, to rectify that "mis-management". Not perpetuate it.

But what have we had? Sure, there has been some progress in removing the overbearing intrusiveness of the burgeoning bureaucracy we had under the NDP. But 'fiscally'? Is "our" government being managed to produce the results we intend? The "majority" of us, and not the mouthy "minority" who can seemingly always get media attention for the costly 'cause' that only provides an excuse for further taxation?

Are our taxes and the seemingly never ending levies that are imposed upon us producing the "good life" for more and more of our citizens as individual British Columbians?

Are we "baking that bigger pie" so that everyone that comes to the table can have their "sufficience sustansified"? We don't want for any of the 'ingredients'.

Or are we back to trying to divvy up a "shrinking pie", with a few hogs still getting more than their share, (though it's declining for them, too), and an increasing number getting less than ever? And paying more than ever for that?

We have a "global financial crisis" preceisely because of the failures of a number of people like Gordon Campbell. People who've been put into high office without any sense of responsibility to those who VOTED for them. But with a clear and conscious knowledge of their responsibiities to those who FINANCED them. Those who bankrolled their acquisition of the 'trappings of power', and what they must do for THEM, not US, to retain those 'trappings'.

The ones who stayed home on Election day, the nearly 50% now who refused to be a part of such an obvious sham, are likely far smarter than they know.

There is a thing called Cause and Effect Mr. PG. I'm seeing more and more empty homes in Prince George with real estate signs in the windows. Friends and family leaving this province. The Liberals have a Cause and this is your Effect. Too much all at once. Is all I'm saying.

Gordon Campbell's idea of 'leadership' isn't to propose anything new or innovative that would truly be adventageous for the people of BC.

All of us, 'rich', and 'poor', and 'those in the middle', alike.

Rather it's to be first in a line of "Global Groupies" that want to march in lock-step with like-minded ideologues to preserve the exalted positions of an elite minority that seeks to preserve the notion that "figures" with "$-sign" in front of them are the be-all and end-all of eveything.

They aren't. In fact, they're only even relevant to the extent that they properly REFLECT reality. And he's taking them further away from ever doing that, rather than restoring them to their proper place.

We can't "tax" our way to "global cooling", no matter how much is taken off us in Carbon Tax. Not anymore than we could change the temperature of planet Earth if we all went out and hanged ourselves tomorrow.

A HST won't make us more "globally competitive". It'll just cost us more to remain right where we are.

Keep travelling that road, the one Mr. Campbell and his minions seem so determined to push us along on, and we'll 'work' our way straight into bankruptcy. Both 'financially' and 'physically'.

If that's where we're headed anyways, why do they think we have to 'work' at getting there? To pay THEIR taxes, to hasten the process?

Like I said before, lets forget about "Party" politics ~ the next election won't be until 2013 ~ and take a very thorough look at just how we finance government. I think we're getting hosed, the way the "books" are currently kept.

"The ones who stayed home on Election day, the nearly 50% now who refused to be a part of such an obvious sham, are likely far smarter than they know. "

Darn it socredible, you had me right to here. Those who choose not to vote are the stupidest of all. And ironically they seem to be the biggest complainers.

Sounds like you have all the answers socredible, why don't you run for office?

No, Gordon Campbell is not the cause of all the evil in the world, unlike many on here would have you believe. BC does not drive the world's economy... not even close.

Then why don't we put "None of the Above" on the bottom of every election ballot, Mr. PG, and then see how many abstain from voting?

I think the results might be quite surprising to us all. And that supposed "apathy" on the non-voting part of the electorate just might be revealed to be more of a "revulsion" at the hopelessness of voting for a change of "Administration" when it's really a change of "Policy" that's desired.

And every potential choice of Administration embodies essentially the SAME overall Policy. But how do we know, when our elections have become about as meaningful as a beauty contest?

If we did that, those who say they want to be the "representatives" of "the people" would at least have to make an attempt to find out what it is "the people" really want. That would be the only way to stave off "None of the Above" topping the vote count.

Not, as it is now, where they just give the voter a pre-selected list of things to choose from in some Party generated "platform", most of which are likely to be found to be of very little fundamental importance to the majority of us anyways.

I, personally, do NOT have all the answers. Nor do I have any desire to hold any elected office. Perhaps that's the difference between me and someone who does desire to be elected to something. They "think" they do, whereas I "know" I do not.

As I see it, the role of the MLA is to find out what his constituents want and "demand results" from those who, in the final analysis, are the only ones technically capable of delivering them. The professional Civil Service. Whom we pay, at its upper echelons, extremely well to do just that. Lets get what we're paying for.

People who run for office realizing that that is their proper role, and one they're prepared to try to fulfill, are far better people than I'll ever be, or ever could be. They'll have my vote, regardless of what they call themselves.

I quite agree, Gordon Campbell is not the cause of "all the evil in the world". But he does play a part, either purposefully, or more likely, haplessly, in perpetuating it. He serves, and owes obedience to, a Financial System that doesn't reflect actual reality. Ms. James, if she were our Premier, would most certainly do likewise. Neither can "change the world", but either could do lots to change that.

I don't personally care who the people of BC choose as government, but I do care that the financial delusions that've been too long perpetuated on us come to an end. That we start to make the "figures" fit the "facts", instead of always attempting the opposite.

I think the special interest groups which have been feeding off the taxpayers for quite a few decades now have made a major blunder. They got too greedy. They have gone too far. They have strangled the "golden goose". The average taxpayer is tapped out. The average taxpayer is now forced to push back. It's going to be interesting to see how it all ends. My money is on the average taxpayer.

This depression we are now entering is going to do wonders to cleanse our present system of all of the excesses and imbalances which are now present.




I

One of the difficulties with the way in which we finance Government is that the Government does not keep its books the same way every other business does. Yet those in Government, particularly in the BC Liberal Party, but other Parties, too, are often fond of telling us that, "The Government is just like any other business, it can't spend more than it takes in. We've got to have a Balanced Budget, or we'll quickly go to rack and ruin." And most of us , on hearing that, would agree. Only without ever having given any thought just as to WHAT we are agreeing with.

Now a Budget is a projection of Revenues and Expenditures over a coming fiscal period. A Balanced Budget means that the Government projects its coming Revenues from taxation, etc., will match its coming Expenditures, dollar for dollar. That it will collect FROM the public exactly the same amount it SPENDS with the public in the same time period.

To carry on, after hitting the 'send' button accidentally in mid-stream....

That the Government will NOT be going into "debt", in other words. However, as laudable as this may sound for a Government's image of being 'fiscally responsible', 'someone' WILL still be going into "debt".

Likely MANY 'someones'. Us.

For under the current rules and conventions of Finance, a balanced Government Budget and balanced budgets of all within the country or province is a mathematical impossibility.

One can only be "balanced" under the current system by "unbalancing" the other. And an increase in "debt" will be necessary, somewhere, to correct the imbalance. This should not be so, but it is.

Businesses do not operate solely off a "budget". They have a Balance Sheet, which is much more important. Since it records increases or decreases to the Equity of their shareholders as their Assets and Liabilities increase or decrease corrspondingly from their operational activities.

They do not recover all their 'expenditures' from their 'revenues' in the same time period they are made. Such would be virtually impossible.

Many of their 'expenditures' are capitalised, and "expensed" against revenues as 'depreciation' over many years as the fixed capital they've invested in gradually wears out.

Contrast this with a Government operating solely off a "balanced Budget". It is telling us that a road it constructs, say, one that might last five or ten years, has to be completely paid for by the public in the same year it's constructed and the expenditure was made.

If it isn't telling us that, but rather that it IS paying for that road out of taxation over the period it depreciates, then it most certainly is NOT balancing its budget from taxation alone. Not without going further into "debt", for how did it first pay for the road?

What is happening is that the government is removing money faster from us in taxation than the capital values of the Assets are actually diminishing. This leads to a systemic shortage of purchasing power in our whole domestic economy as we increasingly have a discrepancy between items for sale with a price tag on them in 'money', and the amount of actual 'money' in existence to meet those prices.

This is just ONE of many similar things which our current regime, nor its hopeful replacement, do not seem anxious to examine. Why? Are they ignorant of financial processes? Or are the "merchants of debt" dissuading such an examination? It would be interesting to know.

"Then why don't we put "None of the Above" on the bottom of every election ballot, Mr. PG, and then see how many abstain from voting? "

Spoiling the ballot just gets your vote thrown in the garbage. Not really a solution IMO.

-----------------

"As I see it, the role of the MLA is to find out what his constituents want and "demand results" from those who, in the final analysis, are the only ones technically capable of delivering them."

Easier said than done. However, how do you 'represent' a consituency with a spectrum of different views on things and they they 'should' be?

I don't believe that people get elected into public office and go through the intense scrutiny with the intent of screwing everything up and getting everyone upset. Why would anyone put themselves through that?

It seems that government these days is about balancing the priorities of everyone with diminishing resources. We expect the government to take care of us in all situations from cradle to grave, and all of that costs lots of money. Everybody wants all of the services that the government provides, but protest when asked to pay for it.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.

Mr. PG:-"Spoiling the ballot just gets your vote thrown in the garbage. Not really a solution IMO."
========================================

Well, people aren't going to be very interested in voting if they don't feel their vote is going to produce any meaningful results that benefit them.

And obviously a good many of them don't, or they'd go and vote.

But really, why should they feel there's some obligation on their part to sanctify some Policy that's common to ALL the Parties running candidates by voting for one of those candidates if they don't agree with that Policy?

Having "None of the Above" on the ballot would allow them to visibly reject the Policy that they're being asked to validate. Maybe the majority will still be perfectly happy with it, and "None of the Above" will trail the poll. But maybe not. That's one way to do it. Of many.

Another is to have an effective "Voter's Veto". Where those who DID vote in the general election, for some Party's candidate on the basis of its 'platform' as presented, and then find out that what they voted for is not being delivered, and in fact something quite the opposite is to be imposed (like the HST, for instance), they then have an effective means to bring that change before the voters for approval in a referendum on that issue if it's clearly something that concerns a large enough number of those voters.

We could, and perhaps should, limit the ability to vote in such a referendum to those who actually voted in the previous general election. Since they are the ones who honestly did their "bit for democracy", but having been deceived deserve a chance to pass judgement on whether such a deception is justified or not by so-called "changing conditions".

Such measures are really the only way to overcome voter apathy, when so many now feel their vote as presently exercised is virtually meaningless. And increasingly, it seems it is.

=========================================

Mr.PG continues:- "It seems that government these days is about balancing the priorities of everyone with diminishing resources. We expect the government to take care of us in all situations from cradle to grave, and all of that costs lots of money. Everybody wants all of the services that the government provides, but protest when asked to pay for it."
==========================================

Not "diminishing resources". There is no 'physical' cause of poverty in BC as there is in many less fortunate lands. Where the "resources" ~ both natural and human ~ the plant, and knowledge, skills and ability, etc. really do not exist, or would be extremely difficult to procur, or have severely been "diminished". Like in Zimbabwe, for instance.

Our 'poverty', including our government's crying poor, is purely FINANCIAL. We are gulled into thinking that we cannot do anything that needs doing "because there's no money". That's the overiding "Policy" that negates what we believe we're voting for when we do vote, and makes a mockery of the democratic process as it's presently practiced.

That's like telling someone who wants to go on the bus from here to Vancouver, one that's still got plenty of empty seats on it when it leaves the depot, that they couldn't get on because the ticket agent just ran out of tickets!

People wouldn't stand for that if they saw that regularly happening. They'd demand that there was a proper correlation between seats availble and tickets available, with the number of "seats" determining how many can ride, not some insufficiency of "tickets".

Our ability to do anything is conditioned solely by our ability to do it. And nothing else. We fought a war for six years between 1939 and 1945 that we clearly entered without any "money".

At no time in that conflict did ANY of the combatant nations involved say, "We can't go on, we'll have to stop 'cause we're "out of money"."

What determined whether they could fight on wasn't "money" ~ that was the least of their concerns ~ but whether they had the men and material and national will to continue. And so it is in peacetime as well.

"Money" is our 'servant', not, as too many have been erroneously convinced our 'master'. Let the "facts" be reflected in the "figures", and physical 'plenty' not be misrepresented as 'scarcity' by wrongful accounting.

BTW:- Did you ever stop to consider why so many people now seem to expect the government to care for them from the cradle to the grave? And then bitch about paying for it? Might it just be because, even with the government trying to do for them many of the things they no longer can afford to do for themselves, they still don't have enough "money" to pay for those services through the governement either? Maybe we should go back and look at just WHY? WHY that which is "physically possible, socially desirable, and morally correct" CAN NOT ALWAYS BE MADE FULLY "FINANCIALLY" POSSIBLE, TOO. Or are we too afraid of the "Black Magic" supposedly inherent in mere 'figures" with a "$-sign" in front of them?