quote:

Originally posted by Orko Maybe it would make sense to give further funding to those of lower income levels? They do usually live in older housing, and have less per year to spend on home renovations. With that thinking, they could become the biggest wasters of energy(per square foot of space per house) since the materials are old, and nothing is being done about it. People at higher income levels would obviously have more to spend on reno's because their other bills are taken care of. Giving money to the poor to fix up their house, seems like helping Canada and not the poor. Hmmm...food for the kids or new double pane windows?

True say, however I can of think better programs like Habitat for Humanity that doesn't need 33% of it's funding just for auditing never mind overhead...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r True say, however I can of think better programs like Habitat for Humanity that doesn't need 33% of it's funding just for auditing never mind overhead...

Agreed, but you are just looking at the one negative aspect of the program. I was specifically referring to the poor people comment.

Yes, other programs need money, but we should focus on getting that 33% back into the initial program, or trying to find a way to stop it from happening in the future.

Its a worthy idea, and we need something in place of it, just not a cancellation. People develop negative views about programs like this when they are cancelled mid step. Will they be as willing to sign up in the future, only to have their hopes dashed again? That's the type of mentality we need to avoid.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko Agreed, but you are just looking at the one negative aspect of the program. I was specifically referring to the poor people comment. Yes, other programs need money, but we should focus on getting that 33% back into the initial program, or trying to find a way to stop it from happening in the future. Its a worthy idea, and we need something in place of it, just not a cancellation. People develop negative views about programs like this when they are cancelled mid step. Will they be as willing to sign up in the future, only to have their hopes dashed again? That's the type of mentality we need to avoid.

Oh I agree but we haven't heard about a replacement program either so there could still be something in the wings (there better be something or I'd be pissed too).
It's a great idea, it just had lousy program efficiencies, what do you expect it's government!

The government is better off giving special tax breaks/incentives to smaller, leaner, private programs for such a cause.
Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy, that's just the way governments work, and guess who pays for it all...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by King Luis the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

The current government just saved you and I a lot of money, whatchutalkin'boutWillis?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy

I agree, and after working for a large company, I can see why. Its not just the gov though(they are the worst), its just human mentality. Its about covering your ass. Everybody needs a paper trail, which leads to forms, which leads to procedures, which leads to....

Its amazing the amount of waste that is created because of the fear of litigation. Ive always wondered, with the amount of money 'wasted' in paper work, vs the amount of income paid to workers, which goes back into the gov and society, are we better or worse off with all this bureaucracy?

thnk god i decided to not use my energuide market plan for my business. be alot of unhappy ppl right now

all programs started by the liberals need to be at least audited and many completely cut...

the party itself should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up...

they're crooks... fir3start3r hit the nail on the head... the corruption in that party is no joke.. and def. not conservative propoganda... billions of dollars that liberals misappropriated could have been used to fund this program for years to come...

PC reign of terror... lol... their socially conservative mindset aside... they're going to tackle the debt a bit more... thus reducing financing costs... and finally making it possible for my tax dollars to be used for programs, such as this, that will benifit the people... or even reduce my income tax....

lex

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The current government just saved you and I a lot of money, whatchutalkin'boutWillis?

At what cost?!!?!?

If the conservatives were really about efficient government they would streamline the administration of the program to reduce it's costs. FFS, the whole program is about efficiency!
Sadly, the conservative party uses thier supposed "mandate" for efficient government as an excuse to reduce the government's capacity to aid average Canadians. Effectively, they rollback the social welfare programs that benefit Canadians in middle and lower income groups (health care spots), they scoff at programs that help the environment (this article), they reduce the GST (benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor) etc.
The conservative party is a thinly-veiled social/business elite party. I really don't understand how someone in a lower income bracket could even vote for them (sponsorship scandal notwithstanding), given the lack of progressively equitable policies that they support. Open your eyes and look at the policies people!

___________________
"It's mercifully over. But a new phenomenon has taken hold. I recognize it: feelings. Now that they're back, even overcompensating, I never want to lose them again. Bitterness, anger, jealousy, sadness: They all make me happy."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Like most of you, I was pretty pissed when I heard about this too, but then I did a little digging... I mean, why would they do that?? It appears that this program, like a lot of other Liberal nanny State programs, was being heavily propped up with our tax dollars. Or course our lovely liberal run media wouldn't dare point that out. Don't even get me started on the whole Gun Registry fiasco... That's right folks, they are telling us that 33 percent of the grants went just to public-sector union taxpayer-paid liberal-hired bureaucrats? Each year? Just for the audits? Fully one third? And that’s not even counting the cost to dole out the cash through the liberal-left bureacracy, advertise it through liberal-friendly ad firms, and then sell! sell! sell! it at election time with massive full-page dead tree ads, and more—which would all amount to a large portion of the rest of that $44.3 million, probably. That’s some efficient government! Had I had this background information is morning, I probaby would have had a skip in my step rather than the small heart-break. Facts are a bitch...

Please show me your evidence that it is mainly "Liberal friendly" auditors and firms who have been, and would contintue to be, benefiting from this program.

Facts are a bitch, indeed...so let's see those sources please! That's quite the unsupported assertion you're making there, it seems.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Oh I agree but we haven't heard about a replacement program either so there could still be something in the wings (there better be something or I'd be pissed too). It's a great idea, it just had lousy program efficiencies, what do you expect it's government! The government is better off giving special tax breaks/incentives to smaller, leaner, private programs for such a cause. Bureaucracy also begats more bureaucracy, that's just the way governments work, and guess who pays for it all...

sure, there *could* be...just like there *could* be a new deal for the Natives...just like there *could* be new environmental initiatives.

The problem is that in the meantime there nothing. Personally, I'd like to *at least* see a replacement proposal before they just go ahead a scrap an existing intiative (an initiative that they themselves supported!)

if the audits cost too much, then how about addressing those costs instead of scapping the program? Farm out the audits to those "leaner firms" of which you speak. How many businesses are now negatively impacted by suddenly scrapping this program that had, until the CPC took office, support from all parties, AFAIK?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r ...The Liberals were talking about bumping this program's grants up another $200 Million a year and $500 Million a year for poor folks who would end up living in better than us. So image 33% of $700 Million dollars just for auditing themselves... ...

So fully paying for the audits and retrofits for lower income people means that they would be better off than the middle class? come on now...you wanna trade places with low income earners?


Here we apparently had a successful program that had widespread support...that provided concrete incentives for people to take an active role in energy conservation...now it's gone...with nothing yet tabled to replace it.

Last edited by MarkT on May-16-2006 at 22:03

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT sure, there *could* be...just like there *could* be a new deal for the Natives...just like there *could* be new environmental initiatives. The problem is that in the meantime there nothing. Personally, I'd like to *at least* see a replacement proposal before they just go ahead a scrap an existing intiative (an initiative that they themselves supported!)

Thats exactly what I was thinking, but then the idea comes up of cutting your losses.

Here it just depends on what you think is best, continue to spend money and improve the sysetm, or scrap it and come up with a whole new one. Continued projects vs saving money. It is very hard to decide which one in the end will provide the greater good to the Canadian taxpayer.

The conservatives have said they were not happy with the liberal take on environmental issues, nor the world's views considering they are pushing for their own guidliens and plans. What are these plans? I am not against a conservative lead environment plan, I just want to see a firm plan in place to aid in reducing Canada's pollution.

In respect to these audits, what exactly are they auditing?