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?
You're right, how dare I question how the governments spends $1 bil in taxpayer money. It has absolutely nothing to do with me being a tax paying citizen. Our leaders are always fiscally responsible and we should never question their supreme judgment.
You can't even question these things without the typical political spin and B.S. Very reminiscent of the Conservative's comeback of "you support the terrists!!1" any time the opposition has any questions about Afghanistan.
You're right, how dare I question how the governments spends $1 bil in taxpayer money. It has absolutely nothing to do with me being a tax paying citizen. Our leaders are always fiscally responsible and we should never question their supreme judgment.
So you don't intend to answer the question. That is fine. So long as your dont pretend that the above addressed anything other than your ability to stomp your feet and beat your chest.
Question away. Seriously. My question to you was what you had done, besides regurgitate other peoples words, to form your opinions. And then you posted the above.
You are entitled to your opinions of course. And their value to others is greatly predicated on the amount of time and energy you spend forming them.
So you don't intend to answer the question. That is fine. So long as your dont pretend that the above addressed anything other than your ability to stomp your feet and beat your chest.
Question away. Seriously. My question to you was what you had done, besides regurgitate other peoples words, to form your opinions. And then you posted the above.
You are entitled to your opinions of course. And their value to others is greatly predicated on the amount of time and energy you spend forming them.
Hm I guess I should just be like you and not ever read what is written in the news like how no other G20 meeting has come close to spending as much as we are. You're opinions are so independent and well thought out. Righteous, dude.
Your bad ability to read between lines is amazing .... but since you brought it up. What do you think would happen? I say not much .... Let me hear the list of sky-would-fall on us if politely decline to participate.
********
Membership does not reflect exactly the 19 largest national economies of the world in any given year. The organization states:[1]
“ In a forum such as the G-20, it is particularly important for the number of countries involved to be restricted and fixed to ensure the effectiveness and continuity of its activity. There are no formal criteria for G-20 membership and the composition of the group has remained unchanged since it was established. In view of the objectives of the G-20, it was considered important that countries and regions of systemic significance for the international financial system be included. Aspects such as geographical balance and population representation also played a major part.
*********
Because the federal (and perhaps provincial I am sure as well; can't imagine it was done without their thundering yes ...) ********** volunteered to have both G-8 and G-20 at the same time. So every bribe and corruption, consultancy fees are happening twice and it's very easy to hide all kind of payouts you would not perhaps normally have. Not at that rate anyways.
Let's just hope that we will recoup some of the money by applying bill 203 on the unknown visitors ... LOL (I am sure they will not be doing 100 on our hwys ....)
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.....
hahahah so because other countries piss away millions of dollars on funding a party for a bunch of "leaders" canada has to do the same and piss away 1 BILLION dollars!!!???
Last year our government didnt even have money to keep public pools open. They're shoving hst down our throats, miller tax on license renewals, more taxes at every turn, yet less services. At the same time they're pissing away a BILLION ****en dollars on a meeting lol
Do some of you even understand how much money 1 BILLION dollars is?
This is like a bad ***en joke, yet people defend it...
There is no hope...
And let me just remind you all, that 1.1B is ONLY for security related expenses. There will be some more dough spent on the events itself. Absolutely crazy!!!!!!!!
Being ignant of any and all facts pertaining to this debacle I need to aks why isn't the cost being split 20 ways maybe weighted more toward the host just to be polite?
Business as usual. The extraordinary becomes the ordinary. Like a snowball gathering speed and girth downhill. I put over 10g in my pockets for 18 days at Bruce Nuclear. Normal. It's a whole different world out there. Please continue paying your taxes and hydro bills. We need you.
In part because the cost is actually an aggregate cost for two distinct events being held in two distinct locations. The G8 meet is being held in Huntsville, while the G20 is in Toronto.
In part because the cost is actually an aggregate cost for two distinct events being held in two distinct locations. The G8 meet is being held in Huntsville, while the G20 is in Toronto.
Two separate locations, two sets of security planning, two sets of security and perimeter control, two sets of catering, accomodations, meals logistics, and on it goes.
I'm not going to comment on cost comparisons with other countries because you then get into apples and oranges comparisons. The US in particular already has a huge existing security infrastructure and heightened in-situ security awareness because of the Homeland Security environment that has has existed since 9/11. We do not have anywhere near that kind of existing infrastructure (or paranoia), so a lot of the security planning here is being done on a one-off special event basis just for this set of meetings. One-offs in any sphere of endeavour tend to cost more.
In any case, you'll have a big concentration of the world's most influential leaders all in one spot at one time. The consequences of a successful terrorist attack would be catastrophic, and the unfortunate reality is that threats of terrorism are a big part of today's reality. Better that money is spent now to help ensure adequate or even extravagant security measures, than money be spent later to deal with the aftermath of a successful terrorist attack.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
