Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KingIggy

If One Defends The Oil Sands, One Should Defend The CBC

Recommended Posts

So, King Iggy blasted National Geographic, and provided a short-term, pragmatic defense of the Alberta oil sands. He also admitted it wasn't clean enough (a long-term synopsis).

Would it also be big-brained and progressive to come to the defense of the CBC in light of the Cons recent shunning of the venerable public icon ? We all know the Cons want to destroy the gov't run national media source. The Republican party and all Neo-Cons despise the CBC, so it MUST be destroyed... (according to the extreme wing of the Conservative party).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We all know the Cons want to destroy the gov't run national media source. The Republican party and all Neo-Cons despise the CBC, so it MUST be destroyed... (according to the extreme wing of the Conservative party).

Did you watch the documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter 'The Right Feeling Wronged', I think it was called? Good Republicans only watch Fox and I guess in Canada good Conservatives only watch Canwest Global.

Both the Reform and Alliance always questioned funding to CBC and during the 2004 election campaign, Harper promised to look into commercializing (aka: privatizing) the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, King Iggy blasted National Geographic, and provided a short-term, pragmatic defense of the Alberta oil sands. He also admitted it wasn't clean enough (a long-term synopsis).

Would it also be big-brained and progressive to come to the defense of the CBC in light of the Cons recent shunning of the venerable public icon ? We all know the Cons want to destroy the gov't run national media source. The Republican party and all Neo-Cons despise the CBC, so it MUST be destroyed... (according to the extreme wing of the Conservative party).

I could give two shits about the CBC, it is an economic drain and does nothing to contribute to the wealth of the country. Let it be privatized and fend for itself.

Gov't run media is the most ridiculous thing there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, King Iggy blasted National Geographic, and provided a short-term, pragmatic defense of the Alberta oil sands. He also admitted it wasn't clean enough (a long-term synopsis).

Would it also be big-brained and progressive to come to the defense of the CBC in light of the Cons recent shunning of the venerable public icon ? We all know the Cons want to destroy the gov't run national media source. The Republican party and all Neo-Cons despise the CBC, so it MUST be destroyed... (according to the extreme wing of the Conservative party).

The CBC is not exactly what I would call government-run.On the whole,I find them rather left- leaning to say the least.There is one difference between the Alberta oil sands project and the CBC that comes to mind.One of them provides billions of dollars to fund other parts of the country,the other entity consumes over one billion dollars of taxpayers money annually.

I would also like to point out that according to the ratings,not too many people actually watch or listen to the CBC as compared to the competition.

If it were up to me,I would love to see the CBC have to work for their funding,similar to PBS in the U.S.Their funding should be reduced annually until it recieved zero taxpayer dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could give two shits about the CBC, it is an economic drain and does nothing to contribute to the wealth of the country.

Wealth isn't only about money....and a country certainly isn't only about money. We live next to the largest entertainment producing market in the world. I love their TV, but I have to remember that its not my own. I don't like a great deal of what CBC makes, but much of it is educational and can be entertaining to some. Correction: I do like CBC Radio. Not all of the programs, but the current affairs ones are quite good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you watch the documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter 'The Right Feeling Wronged', I think it was called? Good Republicans only watch Fox and I guess in Canada good Conservatives only watch Canwest Global.

Then they've got a problem, because CanWest is going down the tubes.

Both the Reform and Alliance always questioned funding to CBC and during the 2004 election campaign, Harper promised to look into commercializing (aka: privatizing) the network.

Harper is in no position to do anything of the kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wealth isn't only about money....and a country certainly isn't only about money. We live next to the largest entertainment producing market in the world. I love their TV, but I have to remember that its not my own. I don't like a great deal of what CBC makes, but much of it is educational and can be entertaining to some. Correction: I do like CBC Radio. Not all of the programs, but the current affairs ones are quite good.

Yeah, I kind of agree. Certainly CBC radio beats the hell out of anything else on the dial when it comes to political, current affairs, and non-music programming.

I hate American TV. Actually, I don't much like Canadian TV either. Cable is the future, and I cannot wait until the pipelines and gatekeepers get finally broken up. Wouldn't it be nice to pick and choose what you want to watch and pay for that alone? The CBC has some of the better programming available on TV, but it's still a bit of a Dog. Even though I don't watch much TV, I think that an independent Canadian news source like the CBC is very important. Narrowing their mandate, but maintaining their funding might be of far more value than any other choice. Imagine if instead of producing shitty entertainment, they expanded their news budget? No question that like any big organization without a profit motive to enforce discipline, they get sloppy and wasteful. Maybe a huge reshuffle, and periodic squeeze is what they need to keep on their toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the CBC is necessary for Canadian culture. Especially in today's world. CTV isn't Canadian (with 99.9% of their programming American). I don't like their drama programming but I do like Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes. It may not be like the glory days of the nineties (with Air Farce) but those two programs give me the political fix that no other program on any other network can. The Hour hosted by George S. is also an interesting talk show that has a truly Canadian identity and shows off Canadian cultural icons and others from around the world. I think their new coverage isn't as organized as CTV Newsnet but whenever they want to, they blow away other Canadian news stations (like during the election, etc.). I also have to say that CBC the National is hands-down the better option than the CTV alternative as Mansbridge>>>Robertson. Lastly, CBC has At Issue which blows the competition out of the water. However, they need to develop better ideas like expanding At Issue into a program the way CTV Question Period and have it be at least 30 minutes (it would be different than anything else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gov't run media is the most ridiculous thing there is.

Gov't run farms getting $2 billion for biodiesel is the most ridiculous thing. They get $1 billion more than the CBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gov't run farms getting $2 billion for biodiesel is the most ridiculous thing. They get $1 billion more than the CBC.stats canada

This again...

That 2 billion dollar investment has resulted in approx 4 billion dollar returns from crop receipts alone. And that's not even including agribusiness and inputs. Looks like a worthwhile investment that the ag sector has paid for. Not to mention gives the economy a good shot in the arm.

stats canada

What are the returns on dropping billions on the car industry and the CBC???

Edited by blueblood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the returns on dropping billions on the car industry and the CBC???

First of all, the car industry is the heart of Ontario, which is the heart of Canada. If Ontario collapses (500000 unemployed from car collapse) so does Canada since Ontario makes up at least 38.5% of Canada's population. We need to kickstart the car industry since it will eventually revive the heart of Canada.

CBC is not doing so well financially because the current government isn't giving it flexibility in programming and not allowing it to give its producers creative control (article in the Star months back). CBC is probably the only thing Canadian on today's TV. Oh yeah, CTV gets taxpayer money too but I don't hear Harper complaining about that.

Edited by SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, the car industry is the heart of Ontario, which is the heart of Canada. If Ontario collapses (500000 unemployed from car collapse) so does Canada since Ontario makes up at least 38.5% of Canada's population. We need to kickstart the car industry since it will eventually revive the heart of Canada.

Not according to Ontario's GDP contribution from each sector of the economy:

The manufacturing sector accounts for 21 per cent of the total provincial output and is supported by a strong and growing service sector. The top five manufacturing industries are transportation equipment, metal products, food processing, chemical & products and electrical & electronic products.

http://www.2ontario.com/facts/fact02.asp

Services and manufacturing other than transportation contributes more to Ontario's GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That 2 billion dollar investment has resulted in approx 4 billion dollar returns from crop receipts alone. And that's not even including agribusiness and inputs. Looks like a worthwhile investment that the ag sector has paid for. Not to mention gives the economy a good shot in the arm.

You are attributing all the ethanol money to all far receipts? On what basis?

What are the returns on dropping billions on the car industry and the CBC???

For the car industry, it is probably tens of billions in future taxes on operations in Canada if the industry can be turned around. If it can't be turned around, expect billion of costs in devastated communities, businesses and people.

For the CBC, I have already said many times that I think that all government money should stop. Will you make the commitment to get off the ethanol dole. Don't you think if farms are doing boffo business that they don't need this money anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are attributing all the ethanol money to all far receipts? On what basis?

For the car industry, it is probably tens of billions in future taxes on operations in Canada if the industry can be turned around. If it can't be turned around, expect billion of costs in devastated communities, businesses and people.

For the CBC, I have already said many times that I think that all government money should stop. Will you make the commitment to get off the ethanol dole. Don't you think if farms are doing boffo business that they don't need this money anymore?

I am attributing ethanol money on the basis that it coincides with the increased grain prices. This created extra demand, and Canada is far richer because of it.

The ag industry went through a massive downsizing in the middle part of the twentieth century, and I mean massive. Those displaced workers managed to find jobs and the wealth generation of canada shifted. Now, I believe it is shifting again, and if I was a betting man, the smart bet would be for massive job creation in the energy sector. We will probably manufacture energy instead of cars, which is a good thing.

The ethanol, just like the western oil industry has taken the gov't "subsidies" and has paid them back through taxes and increased wealth. Potash Corp did very well and will do well when the crisis is over.

Why are you so against investing in the ag sector which gives proven returns, when at the same time you are all for throwing money at the manufacturing sector which is burning through cash? I'm all about smart funding, not just throwing ad hoc firehose spending. That money the manufacturers want would be far better off spent in new fertilizer production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am attributing ethanol money on the basis that it coincides with the increased grain prices. This created extra demand, and Canada is far richer because of it.

Your might be far richer but Canadians are paying $2 billion in higher taxes which artificially push up grain prices and food prices as well as feel prices.

The ag industry went through a massive downsizing in the middle part of the twentieth century, and I mean massive. Those displaced workers managed to find jobs and the wealth generation of canada shifted. Now, I believe it is shifting again, and if I was a betting man, the smart bet would be for massive job creation in the energy sector. We will probably manufacture energy instead of cars, which is a good thing.

That may be true. But it doesn't mean people didn't suffer terribly for it.

The ethanol, just like the western oil industry has taken the gov't "subsidies" and has paid them back through taxes and increased wealth. Potash Corp did very well and will do well when the crisis is over.

And yet you have problems with others getting subsidies. Manufacturing has created substantial wealth in Canada as well. Cut them off say many on the right.

I know many on the right also have no truck with the arts. They believe everyone should pay their way except for themselves, of course. Then it is an investment and justifiable.

Why are you so against investing in the ag sector which gives proven returns, when at the same time you are all for throwing money at the manufacturing sector which is burning through cash? I'm all about smart funding, not just throwing ad hoc firehose spending. That money the manufacturers want would be far better off spent in new fertilizer production.

Why do you believe that everyone else should be cut off but not you? Is your investment better than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your might be far richer but Canadians are paying $2 billion in higher taxes which artificially push up grain prices and food prices as well as feel prices.

The huge returns on the increase of farm receipts over the years are more than footing the bill. Canadians are benefitting from higher grain prices through stocks and more money in the tax system. That 2 billion dollars in taxes has contributed to 4 billion more in the economy and scores more through shares in more profitable ag biz and input companies.

That may be true. But it doesn't mean people didn't suffer terribly for it.

Tell that to the laid off farm employees replaced by machines, however they got jobs elsewhere. So will the manufacturing people. Heck, newfies ditched their trawlers and drilled for oil.

And yet you have problems with others getting subsidies. Manufacturing has created substantial wealth in Canada as well. Cut them off say many on the right.

I know many on the right also have no truck with the arts. They believe everyone should pay their way except for themselves, of course. Then it is an investment and justifiable.

I have problems propping up GM and Chrysler who do a piss poor job of running a company and are taking massive losses. Consumers don't want their cars anymore. If that money was going to help out Toyota or Honda pop up plants in Ontario, then I'll agree with you on that part, good companies should be helped out, not those dinosaurs called GM and Chrysler, hell lets help Toyota buy out some of the GM factories while we're at it.

The arts do not contribute to the economy as much as ag, energy, and manufacturing (the good companies a la Toyota/Honda etc.)

Why do you believe that everyone else should be cut off but not you? Is your investment better than others?

Only people that won't burn through money should be helped out, that would be the energy industry, ag, eventually forestry, and the efficient manufacturers (Toyota, Honda etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The huge returns on the increase of farm receipts over the years are more than footing the bill. Canadians are benefitting from higher grain prices through stocks and more money in the tax system. That 2 billion dollars in taxes has contributed to 4 billion more in the economy and scores more through shares in more profitable ag biz and input companies.

And taxes from arts and manufacturing contribute nothing? Unless you are prepared to show one just costs and the other pays bundles, I can't say I believe you when you say that ag contributes more and deserves taxpayer support while others get nothing.

Tell that to the laid off farm employees replaced by machines, however they got jobs elsewhere. So will the manufacturing people. Heck, newfies ditched their trawlers and drilled for oil.

Tell that to anyone who has lost their job. You just keep repeating that you deserve your subsidy, no one else does.

I have problems propping up GM and Chrysler who do a piss poor job of running a company and are taking massive losses. Consumers don't want their cars anymore. If that money was going to help out Toyota or Honda pop up plants in Ontario, then I'll agree with you on that part, good companies should be helped out, not those dinosaurs called GM and Chrysler, hell lets help Toyota buy out some of the GM factories while we're at it.

The last time Chrysler was supported, they paid back every penny and made many of the innovations we see in vehciles now.

The arts do not contribute to the economy as much as ag, energy, and manufacturing (the good companies a la Toyota/Honda etc.)

Actually, I have heard differently. In terms of jobs created per dollar, the arts have been shown to create far more jobs.

Only people that won't burn through money should be helped out, that would be the energy industry, ag, eventually forestry, and the efficient manufacturers (Toyota, Honda etc.)

And so far we have not seen any figures to show how farmers are good at not burning through money whereas everyone else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And taxes from arts and manufacturing contribute nothing? Unless you are prepared to show one just costs and the other pays bundles, I can't say I believe you when you say that ag contributes more and deserves taxpayer support while others get nothing.

I can't say I believe I'd see the day your reduced to making personal attacks and your slipping on reading comprehension. I clearly said that industries that are profitable and aren't drains (exporters) should be getting the assistance they deserve. That would be Oil, Gas, Hydro, Agriculture, Mining, Forestry, Aquaculture, Manufacturing companies that know how to manage.

Tell that to anyone who has lost their job. You just keep repeating that you deserve your subsidy, no one else does.

Another baseless personal attack, read my previous post and the bit above, I've been more than clear who should get help, that would be those that are efficient.

The last time Chrysler was supported, they paid back every penny and made many of the innovations we see in vehciles now.

And the foreign share in the North American market was much smaller than it is now. I should hope they paid it back with such a large share of the North American market. People still wanted NA cars back then, not now.

Actually, I have heard differently. In terms of jobs created per dollar, the arts have been shown to create far more jobs.

With the CRTC dropping the boom anything is possible.

And so far we have not seen any figures to show how farmers are good at not burning through money whereas everyone else is.

Did you not see my stats canada link, compare that to General Motors financial report over the same time period, one is steadily growing, and one is steadily shrinking.

Edited by blueblood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't say I believe I'd see the day your reduced to making personal attacks and your slipping on reading comprehension. I clearly said that industries that are profitable and aren't drains (exporters) should be getting the assistance they deserve. That would be Oil, Gas, Hydro, Agriculture, Mining, Forestry, Aquaculture, Manufacturing companies that know how to manage.

Another baseless personal attack, read my previous post and the bit above, I've been more than clear who should get help, that would be those that are efficient.

That's a weird stance to take. Only profitable industries and companies should get subsidized? Why should my money go to them? They already have all they need.

What the hell is so deserving about mining, oil, and gas companies, that earn a profit based on world commodity prices, and access to publicly owned resources that they happened to get their mitts on first? There are very damned few cases where subsidies should go to privately or publicly owned companies. I have owned and operated manufacturing businesses for most of my adult life. I accept that when I invest my dough, I take risks. If I fail to manage them properly, then I lose my dough. Them's the breaks. If I go bust, it's not like all the assets disappear. The plant, Inventory, staff, and probably much of the intellectual property pass into fresh hands. I lose my equity, some of my creditors get stung. They should have done their homework better. If circumstances are such that all reasonable, and prudent measures could not stave off the problem. If the business was, and is sound, but credit dried up, or a truly extraodinary event occured then a case could be made for support. It should be conditional, and the public should earn a handsome return for bailing out the troubled firm, but it is conceivable that this should happen. The only reason it would be justified is if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In other words, the firm is well managed, and society will lose out if it stops functioning in it's current form.

I definitely don't agree with subsidizing resource companies though. Screw them. The resources aren't going anywhere, and the only real management skills required in the first place are in managing external risks. By definition, if they need help to survive, they failed in their only real management task. Bye Bye equity, bring on the new owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't say I believe I'd see the day your reduced to making personal attacks and your slipping on reading comprehension. I clearly said that industries that are profitable and aren't drains (exporters) should be getting the assistance they deserve. That would be Oil, Gas, Hydro, Agriculture, Mining, Forestry, Aquaculture, Manufacturing companies that know how to manage.

What personal attacks? I just said I can't believe your numbers since I haven't seen any including on profitability. If we are going based on profitability, we certainly can't talk about ethanol since it requires a subsidy to operate.

Another baseless personal attack, read my previous post and the bit above, I've been more than clear who should get help, that would be those that are efficient.

I think you are unclear what constitutes a personal attack. I have simply restated what you have said: that your industry should get a subsidy whereas others should not. You then said it should only go to profitable businesses when clearly ethanol is not profitable.

And the foreign share in the North American market was much smaller than it is now. I should hope they paid it back with such a large share of the North American market. People still wanted NA cars back then, not now.

They still must want some North American cars since millions sold last year.

With the CRTC dropping the boom anything is possible.

I was referring to all arts and not just that covered by telecommunications.

Did you not see my stats canada link, compare that to General Motors financial report over the same time period, one is steadily growing, and one is steadily shrinking.

Did it also show that ag received billions over that period whereas GM got nothing?

Edited by jdobbin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harper is in no position to do anything of the kind.

Somebody should have told him.

"Dear Mr. Harper:

We are greatly surprised and concerned by comments you made in Winnipeg Monday concerning the Conservative Party of Canada’s policy towards the CBC as reported on this morning’s CBC World Report.

Although we recall that similar comments have been made in the past by representatives of the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties, to our knowledge this is the first policy statement on public broadcasting by the Conservative Party of Canada.

We invite you to clarify your remarks, which seem to cast into doubt your Party’s support for the public subsidy to CBC’s English Television Network. This would have the effect of dismantling Canada’s national public broadcaster and would eliminate the vast majority of Canadian programs on television during prime-time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think the CBC is necessary for Canadian culture. Especially in today's world.

What about Little Mosque on the Prairie and Corner Gas? I know Corner Gas is done now, but they are great Cdn programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What personal attacks? I just said I can't believe your numbers since I haven't seen any including on profitability. If we are going based on profitability, we certainly can't talk about ethanol since it requires a subsidy to operate.

The Alberta oil industry for a time needed propping up, there was a time when it wasn't profitable. The oil sands are expensive as well, yet with the appropriate investment they create a lot of wealth for this country, same with ethanol. Not to mention that it takes time to pay for the facilities. Generally industries aren't profitable in the short term as they have to pay for the fixed costs, long term however is another story. Yet it is still profitable enough for large companies to invest millions of dollars into these projects. I'd say the outlook looks pretty good.

I think you are unclear what constitutes a personal attack. I have simply restated what you have said: that your industry should get a subsidy whereas others should not. You then said it should only go to profitable businesses when clearly ethanol is not profitable.

The improvement of the Canadian ag industry shows that it is a wise investment. Start buying Postashcorp shares, I know I am.

They still must want some North American cars since millions sold last year.

Then the industry should downsize accordingly, however not so much people want them, since Toyota is outperforming GM.

I was referring to all arts and not just that covered by telecommunications.

I would love to see how many billions of dollars of arts we export.

Did it also show that ag received billions over that period whereas GM got nothing?

Oil and gas got money too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We all know the Cons want to destroy the gov't run national media source.
.

I would like the to see the CBC stop taking ads and competing with commerical TV. Maybe they should move to cable and be subscriber funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Alberta oil industry for a time needed propping up, there was a time when it wasn't profitable. The oil sands are expensive as well, yet with the appropriate investment they create a lot of wealth for this country, same with ethanol. Not to mention that it takes time to pay for the facilities. Generally industries aren't profitable in the short term as they have to pay for the fixed costs, long term however is another story. Yet it is still profitable enough for large companies to invest millions of dollars into these projects. I'd say the outlook looks pretty good.

The oil industry at all levels continues to receive subsidies even when it appears it doesn't need to be propped up.

The improvement of the Canadian ag industry shows that it is a wise investment. Start buying Postashcorp shares, I know I am.

And when does this money spigot stop? Tax money to ag when it is down, tax money to ag when it is up. So you are saying when things were bad, you should have been cut off?

Then the industry should downsize accordingly, however not so much people want them, since Toyota is outperforming GM.

The downsize was probably complete failure of three car manufacturers. Total unemployment: perhaps 6 million from that alone. Total cost to the economy: estimates were as Warren Buffet keeps telling people were "cataclysmic."

I would love to see how many billions of dollars of arts we export.

So only export industries should be supported?

Oil and gas got money too.

And GM got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...