Why Politicians and Media Love the Asper Family

Why Politicians and Media Love the Asper Family.

No, I didn't write this. Makes you wonder, though, if the writer has a point. I'd go to see the Bombers play in the new stadium, however.

well yeah,, I aint going to stop going to see the bombers because a stadium is built for no reason.

I no longer care if they put a roof on or not. I can wear a parka if need be.

They should leave the roof off and use the money to give parkas out at the first game in novemeber the first year it is open.

that would be cool.

Deank wrote:They should leave the roof off and use the money to give parkas out at the first game in novemeber the first year it is open.

that would be cool.

Damn good idea! The left shoulder patch will be a graphic of the new stadium and the right patch will be a graphic of...wait for it.....the rights museum!

My first Bomber game o' the year is on the 17th...

Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

I have no problem with rich people using their own money to make a money.

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

Yes and no. When they want to use public money, on not-so-popular projects, transparency and accountability are good things, especially when they public gets no say whatsoever. And when things appear to be going off the rails,who could blame the public for being resentfull?

When they use strictly their own money for whatever good, that's great. No one complains when they donate to universities or hospitals. Calling it "constant negativity" is just a tad of a stretch.

No one believes anyone should be given a blank cheque that the taxpayer will have to cover, regardless of the amount of good a family or person has done in the community. There is no bottomless pit of money, and this is no truer than now when we are within the grasp of a crippling recession.

I think we ought to abolish all government handouts. To everyone. Unless sick and destitute and unable to work.

That means no subsidies for football and hockey stadia. No subsidies for museums and galleries and arts of all kind. No tax credits for political donations. No day care subsidies. No GST rebates. No tax credits for home renovations. No tax credits for automobile purchases. No tax credits for any sports activities.

What else?

grumpy old man wrote:I think we ought to abolish all government handouts. To everyone. Unless sick and destitute and unable to work.

That means no subsidies for football and hockey stadia. No subsidies for museums and galleries and arts of all kind. No tax credits for political donations. No day care subsidies. No GST rebates. No tax credits for home renovations. No tax credits for automobile purchases. No tax credits for any sports activities.

What else?

Now your talkin'. Libertarian paradise with our pockets overflowing with more of our hard earned money. For-profit healthcare, too! Can't wait. Private sector profits will take care of things and prosperity will spread among those prepared to work for it. We'll have so much wealth that people will patronize the arts with their dispossible income, etc.

Triniman wrote:

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

Yes and no. When they want to use public money, on not-so-popular projects, transparency and accountability are good things, especially when they public gets no say whatsoever. And when things appear to be going off the rails,who could blame the public for being resentfull?

When they use strictly their own money for whatever good, that's great. No one complains when they donate to universities or hospitals. Calling it "constant negativity" is just a tad of a stretch.

No one believes anyone should be given a blank cheque that the taxpayer will have to cover, regardless of the amount of good a family or person has done in the community. There is no bottomless pit of money, and this is no truer than now when we are within the grasp of a crippling recession.

I agree with most of this except the "on not-so-popular projects" comment. Who has measured anything rated "on not-so-popular projects" ever? This is subjective. And until such time as someone conducts a plebiscite then the loud naysayers who never shut up about such "on not-so-popular projects" will always out shout everyone else.

I'm surprised to hear you say the use of public money is acceptable so long as it is for something "popular".

grumpy old man wrote:

Triniman wrote:

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

Yes and no. When they want to use public money, on not-so-popular projects, transparency and accountability are good things, especially when they public gets no say whatsoever. And when things appear to be going off the rails,who could blame the public for being resentfull?

When they use strictly their own money for whatever good, that's great. No one complains when they donate to universities or hospitals. Calling it "constant negativity" is just a tad of a stretch.

No one believes anyone should be given a blank cheque that the taxpayer will have to cover, regardless of the amount of good a family or person has done in the community. There is no bottomless pit of money, and this is no truer than now when we are within the grasp of a crippling recession.

I agree with most of this except the "on not-so-popular projects" comment. Who has measured anything rated "on not-so-popular projects" ever? This is subjective. And until such time as someone conducts a plebiscite then the loud naysayers who never shut up about such "on not-so-popular projects" will always out shout everyone else.

I'm surprised to hear you say the use of public money is acceptable so long as it is for something "popular".

I have a soft spot for new football stadia...

just think how much lower taxes would be eh?

but anyway..... the actual benefit to society is what needs to be considered when deciding what "handbacks" should be given.

grumpy old man wrote:

Triniman wrote:

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

Yes and no. When they want to use public money, on not-so-popular projects, transparency and accountability are good things, especially when they public gets no say whatsoever. And when things appear to be going off the rails,who could blame the public for being resentfull?

When they use strictly their own money for whatever good, that's great. No one complains when they donate to universities or hospitals. Calling it "constant negativity" is just a tad of a stretch.

No one believes anyone should be given a blank cheque that the taxpayer will have to cover, regardless of the amount of good a family or person has done in the community. There is no bottomless pit of money, and this is no truer than now when we are within the grasp of a crippling recession.

I agree with most of this except the "on not-so-popular projects" comment. Who has measured anything rated "on not-so-popular projects" ever? This is subjective. And until such time as someone conducts a plebiscite then the loud naysayers who never shut up about such "on not-so-popular projects" will always out shout everyone else.

I'm surprised to hear you say the use of public money is acceptable so long as it is for something "popular".

Cleverly and quietly skipping out a plebiscite breeds resentment. No, we don't need a plebiscite for everything...just for new multi-million dollar public-private partnerships where the taxpayer is exposed to significant risk when there sits on the books $4.5 billion worth of must-have infrastructure renewal projects that only get more expensive the longer they are delayed. When was the last time we had a plebiscite anyways? Decades?

Cleverly and quietly skipping out a plebiscite breeds resentment.

Who did that? I know that has not happened to the best of my recollection.

Anywho while I did not suggest a plebiscite for everything why not define plebiscite parameters such as determining a project value that warrants a plebiscite. Where do we draw the line?

I've always supported such a device.

grumpy old man wrote:

Cleverly and quietly skipping out a plebiscite breeds resentment.

Who did that? I know that has not happened to the best of my recollection.

I've always supported such a device.

Who? The backers. They could have insisted on one. It would have made the news. Someone didn't want one. I can only guess it was the backers. I've never heard them say anything about having one, one way or the other, though. Of course, the cheerleading media has not reported on whether or not the thought of having one ever came up.

But you're guessing. Do you know of any project lately where a plebiscite was asked for? Why should this be any different?

So the simple (non) act of not making an uncommon plebiscite request makes the museum backers what? Evil? Weak argument me thinks.

grumpy old man wrote:But you're guessing. Do you know of any project lately where a plebiscite was asked for? Why should this be any different?

So the simple (non) act of not making an uncommon plebiscite request makes the museum backers what? Evil? Weak argument me thinks.

If a plebiscite was asked for, it would have made the news, even if it was turned down. That's pretty much a sure thing.
Never mind the fact that we've not seen one single press conference in which Gail Asper could have responded to reporter's questions. Perhaps the plebiscite idea would have come up. By not having a single press conference to answer questions is a deliberate act of evasiveness. Hell, even the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful person on Earth, holds press conferences and responds to reporters' questions. Gail has never done this, for very obvious reasons. She could hold one and even do it Obama style by responding to phone calls, e-mails and twitter questions, since this is supposed to be a national project. She won't. Avoiding transparency and accoutability is dispicable.

Incentives (at least here in Italy), are what killed the economy. You can't just step in and give out incentives to one certain part of the job market, for you'd just make it worse for the other sectors, and you'd impoverish many families, by making them spend more money than they would normally afford. My idea was to lower overall income tax rates, starting from the lower incomes. But that's utopia, and definitely not political...

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

I've seen no negativity towards the Richardsons. can you provide an example? As for the Aspers, Izzy was a great man. it's too bad his offspring are ruining his legacy by trying to milk the public purse. I have no envy of either family, but when they try to manipulate the governments into paying for the costs of their projects, guess who pays?

If you guess Joe Taxpayer, you would be correct. The CMHR won't make Winnipeg a better place, and neither will the stadium. Let them pay for upgrades into infrastructure into our province and I will respect them.

HurtinAlbertan wrote:I've seen no negativity towards the Richardsons. can you provide an example?

They were slagged yesterday in many blog comments for their part in the Friends of Fort Garry debacle.

HurtinAlbertan wrote:Let them pay for upgrades into infrastructure into our province and I will respect them.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that were the Aspers to pay for Winnipeg's infrastructure you'd respect them? Does this mean if they pay out of their pockets to fix roads and sewers and such you'd respect them?

HurtinAlbertan wrote:

EdWin wrote:Don't you think the same thing can be said for Jim Basillie in Hamilton, or Daryl Katz in Edmonton, or etc.?

I get the impression, through the constant negativity towards families such as the Aspers or Richardsons that Winnipeggers are either bitter or envious of people with money. God forbid some people with $$$ want to invest in Winnipeg and make it a better place

I've seen no negativity towards the Richardsons. can you provide an example? As for the Aspers, Izzy was a great man. it's too bad his offspring are ruining his legacy by trying to milk the public purse. I have no envy of either family, but when they try to manipulate the governments into paying for the costs of their projects, guess who pays?

If you guess Joe Taxpayer, you would be correct. The CMHR won't make Winnipeg a better place, and neither will the stadium. Let them pay for upgrades into infrastructure into our province and I will respect them.

I have NEVER heard anything negative about the Richardsons. Good point, HurtinAlberan. Slagged yesterday? Honestly, I have not heard. There's been far less animosity aimed at the Richardsons than the Aspers, that's a fact.

Infrastructure ain't sexy, so they won't pay it. Nor would I expect them to fix our roads and sewers. I applaud them for donating to that which serves all of us, i.e., medical research, education, etc.

Yeah, Izzy was great. But had he lived, he would have promoted the education centre (as the Free Press calls it) in the same way Gail is doing it - without sufficient transparency, without plebiscite, without answering questions from the public or reporters.

If Dave Asper can hold press conferences (plural!), Gail should have had some at the outset to sell the concept and promote the yes side in a plebiscite that she should have insisted on. And if she insisted, no one would have been able to tell her no.

Triniman wrote:But had he lived, he would have promoted the education centre (as the Free Press calls it) in the same way Gail is doing it - without sufficient transparency, without plebiscite, without answering questions from the public or reporters.

You can't say this. You can't be making things up to strengthen your position.

Now how the anti-museum people work is someone from another blog somewhere will quote your above post and use it to slag Gail Asper and the museum.

grumpy old man wrote:

Triniman wrote:But had he lived, he would have promoted the education centre (as the Free Press calls it) in the same way Gail is doing it - without sufficient transparency, without plebiscite, without answering questions from the public or reporters.

You can't say this. You can't be making things up to strengthen your position.

Now how the anti-museum people work is someone from another blog somewhere will quote your above post and use it to slag Gail Asper and the museum.

Izzy wasn't a squeaky clean businessman... You've heard the stories.

But you're right. I can't make this up. But no can say it would have been otherwise because that would also be...making things up, no?