CITIZEN_2015

poochy, You make personal attacks either on the person or his views and this shows your nature that you are not civilized enough to debate the issues rather than attacking the viewpoints of the poster by using insults. So I am not debating with you. And btw, you conveniently ignore the word"THIS" in my post that you quoted written in Capital letters. If forcing 25000 our citizens out of work or dismantling compassionate social programs causing millions of our citizens to suffer are ridiculous talking points and hyperbole or ridiculous to object or oppose and be happy that THIS government will avoid then that also say another thing about you.

No but since you said this hasn't happened this year yet so I will get back to you when the year is over but at least you admitted they optimistically overestimated (lied in my view) the revenue side by 2.9B so that I got out of you at least. I see that you had no response to my post as who you wish to destroy by proposing cuts of 3B (minimum) to 5B? or admit the fact that it was the Harper way to cut and burn and destroy lives of our citizens not Trudeau's.

Oh you mean like laying off 25000 public service workers? Or dismantling social programs which helped to define the compassion caring nature of Canada built over the course of several generations? that is the heartless uncaring selfish Harper CONSERVATIVE way not THIS Liberal government headed by Justin Trudeau. The nation overwhelmingly elected this government because they did not want the Harper way and its corrupt scandalist uncaring heartless regime so THAT IS WHY. Btw, is that all statistics to you and other conservative supporters when you propose cuts or encourage cuts or do you try to see faces behind these cuts? Do you realize they are real people behind these numbers and statistics who will suffer or lose their jobs? like little girls and boys and mothers and sisters?

I think we are mixed up here between upside-downside. Upside with revenue is same as downside n deficit and that is good but downside in revenue and upside in deficit is bad. Revenue increase is positive but revenue decrease is bad because it results in more deficit. Please show me any past year that a revenue downside of 5.2 billion dollar caused a deficit in which a surplus was promised except this ELECTION year by former conservative government. I do accept the global economy was volatile (oil in particular) but that was so before April 2015 when budget was presented. And what do you say about the sell of GM sales to help to temporarily (artificially) help to balance the budget for one year. that too was a coincident to be happening in an election year?

Me too. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sour+loser

Yes right to be exactly 1.5% representation I guess Trudeau had to cut his hands and legs to make one minister (without hands and legs) to represent 1.5% of the cabinet right? This is the Harper conservative way to appoint ministers without any power such that one person (the dictator Harper) tell them what to do. Lions as lambs.

Exactly well said. Not good to be a Sour loser.

Yes I called them wolves in sheep's clothing. Interesting link. They claimed Canada is fiscally best in G8 but to my surprise I see that Germany and Russia are better fiscally!!!!! Also surprise to see some countries like Mexico and Turkey better too!!!!

This is revenue UPSIDE which means less deficits or higher surpluses and I also said it happened a few times during Paul Martin finance minister years. Please read my post before responding I said to the best of my memory a 5.2 billion less revenue causing higher deficits as it happened with conservative government in an election year!!!!!

Yes it could but when that happens in an election year and so much then one might say it could be a lie or manipulation.

I have followed budgets and to the best of my memory it has never been a forecast more than 5 billion dollars to the upside. The fact that it happened in an election year makes it a lot worse. Paul Martin did have a few multi-billion dollar miscalculations on the downside resulting in lower deficits or higher surpluses but I don't remember a 5+ billion forecast on the upside overestimating tax revenues (maybe before I start counting like in the 80's?). I don't think there is any citation keeping track of what was forecast and what we ended up with anywhere.

The most important role player in every budget is the growth and 1.2% for 2015-2016 is very realistic however I agree that the 79 cent part is not realistic but lower dollar helps exports and hence more tax revenues so lower deficit?. Not sure about 50 dollar oil. So far I think the average for the year has been 45 than 50 but I could be wrong.

I know THIS that they got it right all other years EXCEPT the ELECTION year

Ha ha thanks for the evening laugh. Is that what they call it these days?. 3 billion dollar rounding error. I wish I had a very tiny portion of that error in my account lol!!!!! And btw, the difference is 5.2 billion NOT 3 billion. And they made this so called rounding error in ELECTION YEAR!!!!!! What a coincident!!!!!

Yes I can forecast too. I will have enough saving so that I can spent the entire month of December in Paris in 5 star hotels and while at it can take my entire family and friends too, then pay all my debt early next year and still I will have significant savings in my account end of next year!!. Oh just one thing I forecast to receive a raise of 1000% next year. The so called growth forecast of 2 percent when everyone knew the world economy is slowing was unrealistic to say the least and so was the so called forecast of Canadian dollar at 83 cents!!!!!. Btw, you attacked my comment first, I just responded back exact same way and got the warning!!!!! (you called it rebuff wasn't meant to be a rebuff but responding in kind).

I guess they couldn't sell as much assets as they hoped for to artificially balance the budget and hiding figures just before election call. Sell of GM shares was not enough not to mention purposely up forecasting the growth this year and down forecasting expenses (called manipulations of figures and accounts or lies whichever you prefer). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-sell-final-73-4-million-shares-of-gm-from-bailout/article23814942/

Tell you what...go and look up the word manipulations in the dictionary and then maybe you'll realize how stupid your comment is

Harper conservatives lied by over 5 billion. Through usual conservative manipulations and sale of assets and lies we were supposed to have a surplus of 2.3 billion dollars but now a fiscal update today only after new government in power for two weeks indicates a deficit of 3 billion. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/morneau-fiscal-update-1.3327571

No I did consider provincial taxes and they should go up for the rich same as the federal tax. A fairer society is where we have no hungry children going to school hungry no cold seniors who can't afford medicine no homeless no hungry and we should not have either those people who have so much that living heaven like in big houses, driving luxury cars, expensive furniture, travelling several times a year in expensive hotel and resorts. Especially in the country which is a rich country it is highly unacceptable that we should have hungry and homeless people and poor seniors. There is enough wealth and resources on this planet that everyone can have a good at least middle class life. The reason that we have poor and hungry and homeless people is because there is a tiny minority (mainly in rich countries) who wish to own much more than any human being needs. The top 1% of earth population owns significant portion of wealth. This is unacceptable and must change. A new report issued by the Swiss bank Credit Suisse finds that global wealth inequality continues to worsen and has reached a new milestone, with the top 1 percent owning more of the world’s assets than the bottom 99 percent combined. They should be encouraged to work harder and feel good that by doing so they help the less privileged even more however for those who try to steal (and there no other word for that) by hiding their income or other evasive techniques I would encourage heavy sentences like mandatory prison terms.

This

Interesting statistics!!!!. Any cites? to back up all these very randomly selected but specific numbers and the related alleged consequences????!!!!!!

Well stated comments. You are a stand up gentleman. Bravo!!.

Yes sir that was where I was for more than a decade before coming to Canada. Where the Mational Front and British National Party supporters were/are attacking colored skin people. Where German Nazi sympatizers were/are attacking non-white even white immigrants from Eastern Europe. Where there are friction and clashes between North African Immigrants (many even born in France) and French white citizens where the extreme right has as much as 20% support racists and all above extends to recent democracies like Czech Republic, Hungry and Serbia too. We don't want this garbage in Canada.

No I am anti-communist as I see it an extreme similar to fascism in fact i see both same points on a circle. I am saying a FAIRER distribution of wealth as I said in my original post that you quoted (so please read the posts that you quote before responding).

I believe we should up the punishment for hate crimes in Canada in order to avoid the situation that now exists in Europe. Mandatory minimum sentences of many years for cases involving violence against women, racial and religious minorities, homosexuals and defenseless and heavy enforcement would help in my view and while we are at it bring back the capital punishment for violent crimes against women and children. I know while the former is possible if heavily lobbied but the latter will never happen under this Liberal government. Btw, the mastermind of Paris attacks was sent to hell today by French Police. I know it is just a symbolic win but makes me feel good!!!.