?Impact Posted February 13, 2017 Author Report Posted February 13, 2017 15 hours ago, Moonbox said: you don't get to hide your books anymore Bombardier is a publicly traded company, their books are not hidden. They have on-line annual reports going back to 1997 and older paper ones can probably be found if you go to the right library. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 14, 2017 Report Posted February 14, 2017 23 hours ago, ?Impact said: Bombardier is a publicly traded company, their books are not hidden. They have on-line annual reports going back to 1997 and older paper ones can probably be found if you go to the right library. yet the repayment history of the federal/provincial loans they've received are not made public and kept hidden under the guise of "competitive trade secrets". Ooops! Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 14, 2017 Author Report Posted February 14, 2017 24 minutes ago, Moonbox said: yet the repayment history of the federal/provincial loans they've received are not made public and kept hidden under the guise of "competitive trade secrets". Ooops! Certainly there is a lot in their annual report about government advances and repayment, but then I actually looked at the report to see it. The 2015 report talks about liabilities, and repayments to the government after delivery of aircraft; it also addressed the specific investment made by the Quebec government that year (actually completed in Feb'16, but enough was known to include it in the 2015 annual report). I didn't go back through earlier years to track everything, but then I am not out making a claim one way or the other. I am just pointing out that there is information available. Quote
cannuck Posted February 14, 2017 Report Posted February 14, 2017 On 2/10/2017 at 8:47 AM, Moonbox said: Bombardier apparently gets to just keep following the same failed formula. Failed????? I think you are missing the point. Bombardier last I heard was the recipient of more federal largess (loans that don't get repaid are hardly loans at all!!!) than EVERY other business in their respective sectors combined. You really don't need to be able to RUN the business, just reach out and get the cash that everyone in Quebec feels they are entitled to receive and funnel enough of it back as political contributions and live like a king on the backside of the deals. A very successful business model that every first nation leader in Canada has learned to copy. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 16, 2017 Report Posted February 16, 2017 On 2/14/2017 at 4:53 PM, ?Impact said: Certainly there is a lot in their annual report about government advances and repayment, but then I actually looked at the report to see it. The 2015 report talks about liabilities, and repayments to the government after delivery of aircraft; it also addressed the specific investment made by the Quebec government that year (actually completed in Feb'16, but enough was known to include it in the 2015 annual report). I didn't go back through earlier years to track everything, but then I am not out making a claim one way or the other. I am just pointing out that there is information available. There is "information" available. Just not the information we're specifically interested in and Bombardier goes to great lengths to keep hidden their loan repayment history. It's incredibly easy to bury this information in the corporate books of company that big with vague/general terms, long repayment schedules, deferrals, and GAAP magic. The fact that you thought you could go through annual reports online to get a coherent understanding of Bombardier accounting suggests (no offense or insult intended) that you might be a little naive about how useful these reports are to the the average reader. Don't take my word for it though: http://business.financialpost.com/news/transportation/how-bombardier-inc-suppresses-information-about-how-much-government-funding-it-receives " Bombardier Inc. has gone to great lengths to suppress the release of information about the government funding it receives, heading to court 10 times in nine years, often citing competitive concerns. " http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-planes-federal-government-1.3452023 "...over the last 50 years, Bombardier has received more than $2 billion in government assistance, with only $543 million of it having been repaid." Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Posted February 17, 2017 11 hours ago, Moonbox said: Just not the information we're specifically interested in and Bombardier goes to great lengths to keep hidden their loan repayment history. Yes, it would be nice if there was easy and available accounting of all government financial assistance to industry. We should know how many billions are fed into the fossil fuel industry, how much that CCS pipe dream cost. We want to know what roads are being built to support mining operations. How the softwood lumber industry is propped up. Most important of all however is how much does the taxpayer spend on cleaning up the toxic waste left behind after the industry closes shop, lays off all employees, and leaves town. Yes, that happens in the resource extraction field, but it also happens in all the heavy industries that once dotted the major cites. What is the real cleanup costs in Montreal, certainly currently visible along the Lachine canal but not also in many other parts of the city. Quote
taxme Posted February 17, 2017 Report Posted February 17, 2017 On 2/8/2017 at 6:22 AM, capricorn said: Well then, we can kiss that money goodbye. Anytime the federal government gives anybody or any business any taxpayer's tax dollars we can always kiss it goodbye. That is what our government is very good Blowing taxpayer's tax dollars down the drain. By the time trudeaus reign comes to an end our debt will probably be close to a trillion dollars. But hey, who cares, eh? Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17, 2017 Report Posted February 17, 2017 12 hours ago, ?Impact said: Yes, it would be nice if there was easy and available accounting of all government financial assistance to industry. We should know how many billions are fed into the fossil fuel industry, how much that CCS pipe dream cost. We want to know what roads are being built to support mining operations. How the softwood lumber industry is propped up. Most important of all however is how much does the taxpayer spend on cleaning up the toxic waste left behind after the industry closes shop, lays off all employees, and leaves town. Yes, that happens in the resource extraction field, but it also happens in all the heavy industries that once dotted the major cites. What is the real cleanup costs in Montreal, certainly currently visible along the Lachine canal but not also in many other parts of the city. This is pure straw-man and a wildly diverging segway from the discussion at hand. None of the above has anything to do with the Bombardier handouts or why it's okay for them to hide their their repayment history while continuing to receive corporate welfare. I suppose you thought that poor corporate behavior elsewhere somehow supports Bombardier's position, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Posted February 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, Moonbox said: This is pure straw-man and a wildly diverging segway from the discussion at hand. None of the above has anything to do with the Bombardier handouts or why it's okay for them to hide their their repayment history while continuing to receive corporate welfare. I suppose you thought that poor corporate behavior elsewhere somehow supports Bombardier's position, but that makes no sense whatsoever. So accountability is something we must demand of Bombardier only? I am suggesting that accountability for public support for industry be formalized and apply everywhere, including Bombardier. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17, 2017 Report Posted February 17, 2017 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: So accountability is something we must demand of Bombardier only? I am suggesting that accountability for public support for industry be formalized and apply everywhere, including Bombardier. Obviously you don't understand what straw-man is. Nobody is saying anything of the sort. Almost everyone here would agree that accountability should apply everywhere including (and here's where we actually get back on top) Bombardier. The reason this story gets more attention than others is because of its scale, size and history. This isn't the first, second or even third time we've handed public money to bail out Bombardier. Their repayment history on previous loans is poor and there's no reason to believe this will change in the future. Continuing on the same path without major changes is pretty much the dictionary definition of insanity. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Posted February 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Obviously you don't understand what straw-man is. Obviously you don't understand that Bombardier is far from unique in receiving billions of repeated public money. You make a claim that repayment history is poor, but have absolutely nothing to base that on. I am asking for standardized accountability, but you go off and demand only accountability from Bombardier. The auto industry has received far more public support over many decades, and we do have concrete evidence that it has not paid back billions in bailout money. Let's attack the base problem, not just focus in on one instance because you have some particular perceived problem with it. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17, 2017 Report Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) I've provided you with numerous links to confirm exactly what I'm saying. The fact that you chose not to read any of them or to get an idea of what we're talking about isn't my fault. Your argument is straw man. You've invented this idea that we're all perfectly okay with bad corporate welfare initiatives in general and that it's only Bombardier that we have a problem with. That's not the case so let's drop that altogether. This thread is about the current bailout plan for Bombardier and the reasons why and how a lot of us think it's a bad idea. Previous bad ideas do not justify the next bad idea, so stop bringing up the auto or softwood lumber industries as support for the newest Bombardier debacle. If you want to have a general discussion about corporate welfare in Canada, start a thread about that. It's been discussed at length before with many of the same conclusions but I'm sure you'll find takers in a new thread. Edited February 17, 2017 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Posted February 17, 2017 6 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I've provided you with numerous links to confirm exactly what I'm saying. Canadian Taxpayer federation numbers have zero credibility. 6 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Your argument is straw man. How so? You want accountability and I am agreeing. Lets have accountability - period. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 17, 2017 Report Posted February 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: Canadian Taxpayer federation numbers have zero credibility. If you say so. What about all of the citations from the CBC, GlobeandMail, Financial Post and the Ottawa Sun? Are we pretending they were never linked? If you're going to demand references and citations, at least acknowledge them and/or refute them before you foolishly proceed to say that we have no evidence for what we're saying. The fact is that Bombardier can't and won't explain/prove how much they've paid back and they're working hard to prevent the public from getting this information. It's juvenile logic to ask for evidence that the loan repayments haven't happened, because it's impossible to prove something hasn't happened unless you can prove what has happened. So far we can only prove that a small fraction of the loans have been repaid and any other information is being suppressed for very suspect (and likely very obvious) reasons. 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: How so? You want accountability and I am agreeing. Lets have accountability - period. Okay perfect. I'm glad we agree. Since the subject of the thread is Bombardier and its apparent lack of accountability, can we now continue to discuss it without further protest? This is a large and obvious present-day/current-event example. Edited February 17, 2017 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 17, 2017 Author Report Posted February 17, 2017 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: If you say so. What about all of the citations from the CBC, GlobeandMail, Financial Post and the Ottawa Sun? Are we pretending they were never linked? I saw nothing other than news articles that referenced the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Repetition does not bring more credibility. So lets demand accountability on all public support for industry. Please write your legislative representatives. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2017 Report Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) On 2/17/2017 at 4:49 PM, ?Impact said: I saw nothing other than news articles that referenced the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Repetition does not bring more credibility. Three of Canada's largest media outlets accept the CTF's figures and publish them on a national scale. That counts for a lot more in terms of credibility than your lame-duck deflecting. Refusing the citations simply because you don't like the source is a cheap and intellectually vacant tactic. There's no doubt that the CTF has a bias, but that they're openly publishing numbers on a national scale that could be easily refuted/challenged if Bombardier were capable of doing so. If I were so inclined, I'm sure I could drag up alternate sources, but there's really no point. You've not provided any sources yourself to dispute any of the claims or citations being made nor have you made any effort to explain how or why they're wrong. All you've managed to do so far is bring up red-herrings and straw-men, directing us to look elsewhere for examples of failed corporate welfare when we're already discussing a current, large and repeated example of it. Edited February 21, 2017 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Posted February 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Moonbox said: You've not provided any sources yourself to dispute any of the claims or citations being made nor have you made any effort to explain how or why they're wrong. I have been consistent in asking for across the board accountability, why is that a problem for you? Quote
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2017 Report Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, ?Impact said: I have been consistent in asking for across the board accountability, why is that a problem for you? Because you're contesting the validity of claims regarding Bombardier's lack thereof. You're also protesting our questioning of repeated Bombardier corporate handouts/welfare, bizarrely implying that we can't discuss it specifically without talking about accountability as a general macro issue. If you extend the logic you're using a little bit further you can see how absurd it is: -How can you demand accountability from federal government and Bombardier without demanding it from corporate Canada across the board? -How can you demand more corporate accountability without demanding more from politicians? -How can you demand more political accountability without demanding more from the public service sector? None of these leaps make any actual sense, and all we really do is expand the envelope and derail the discussion. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Posted February 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Because you're contesting the validity of claims regarding Bombardier's lack thereof. I am demanding true accountability, not biased claims as Canadian Taxpayer Federation is well known for. I am demanding it in 100% the exact same manner from all industries that benefit government largess. Why do you want to hide it for everyone but Bombardier? Why can't we have accurate accounting of all public spending on industry? Quote
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2017 Report Posted February 21, 2017 Look up straw-man before you post again please. 2 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Why do you want to hide it for everyone but Bombardier? Why can't we have accurate accounting of all public spending on industry? I don't want to hide it from anyone. I would love to have more public spending accountability. Nobody suggested otherwise anywhere. Stop pretending like someone has. This is juvenile, school-yard logic. The fact that there are problems elsewhere doesn't mean that Bombardier itself isn't a problem and that we shouldn't be discussing it specifically. Your argument is akin to the small child saying, "...but but they all did it toooo!" You see the thread title? It's about Bombardier. 1 Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 21, 2017 Author Report Posted February 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: I would love to have more public spending accountability. Nobody suggested otherwise anywhere. Stop pretending like someone has. So how do we solve the problem about government largess to the corporate sector? Do we create a one of a time special for Bombardier, just because you have a bee in your bonnet, or do we address the basic issue? The CTF does not dictate government policy. Yes the current loans to Bombardier highlight the need for something better, so lets do something better. 2 Quote
Moonbox Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 18 hours ago, ?Impact said: So how do we solve the problem about government largess to the corporate sector? Do we create a one of a time special for Bombardier, just because you have a bee in your bonnet, or do we address the basic issue? Now we peel away the thin disguise of your "argument", which is the absurd notion that we're being grossly unfair to poor little Bombardier by discussing them specifically. That we're talking about them at all, apparently, is proof of some vendetta we have against them. Just no. Stop being silly. Bombardier is simply a really good example of the underlying problem. Not only is it a large and well-known name, but it's been a chronic offender and a shining example repeated failure. We're throwing good money after bad without changing anything and that's always a bad idea. The worst part of the whole debacle is that the founding family still holds a controlling share of the company despite their demonstrated inability to operate profitably. Corporate subsidies, tax breaks and incentives aren't always a bad thing (though often they are). In Bombardier's case, however, the past and present leadership has proven it can't be trusted or relied on to provide value for taxpayer money. We're putting public money into a company to support and inflate the value of the controlling family's stock, and they're giving up pretty much nothing for it. We're getting fleeced. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Now we peel away the thin disguise of your "argument", which is the absurd notion that we're being grossly unfair to poor little Bombardier by discussing them specifically. Where did I ever say that. In fact, if you check I was the person who started this entire thread on the loan to Bombardier. I am questioning it. I think it is indicative of a larger problem, and we need to solve the problem. We don't make up laws that are targeted towards a single individual, we make up laws that are fair across the board. We have a problem, lets fix the problem. Your allegations against Bombardier could be made against any number of companies and industries. Quote
Moonbox Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Where did I ever say that. Remember, just a couple posts ago? 21 hours ago, ?Impact said: So how do we solve the problem about government largess to the corporate sector? Do we create a one of a time special for Bombardier, just because you have a bee in your bonnet, or do we address the basic issue? Somehow suggesting that our criticism of the Bombardier bailout is exceptional. 10 minutes ago, ?Impact said: We don't make up laws that are targeted towards a single individual, we make up laws that are fair across the board. We have a problem, lets fix the problem. This isn't a question of "laws". It's a question of horrible policy decisions and pandering to special interests. The only solution here is for voters to get their heads out of their anuses and to hold politicians accountable for these demonstrably awful decisions. The issue here is that pandering is usually bad for the general public interest, but ends up being political gold. The votes you win by handing money over to special interests usually far surpasses the number you lose from informed voters who see it for what it is. Ignorance is the problem. That's why we're talking about Bombardier right now. It's why we talked about ethanol, solar, softwood lumber and other subsidies in the past. It's why we discussed the auto-bailout, at length, back in 2008/2009. Bombardier is the current subject, and it's something worth discussing. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
?Impact Posted February 22, 2017 Author Report Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That's why we're talking about Bombardier right now. It's why we talked about ethanol, solar, softwood lumber and other subsidies in the past. It's why we discussed the auto-bailout, at length, back in 2008/2009. Bombardier is the current subject, and it's something worth discussing. What about fossil fuel (largest corporate welfare recipient by a significant margin), and other resource extraction industries? That would account for about 80% of our corporate welfare. I agree ignorance is a problem, and that is what I am suggesting a solution to. Proper accountability. I never said it is unfair to poor little Bombardier, I said we need a real solution for everyone. I am not suggesting accountability only for Imperial Oil I am suggesting accountability for all. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.