Accountability Now

The budget was in balance. 2014-15 showed a 1.9b surplus. That was the last year of full control under Harper. This year still has a slight surplus according to the PBO but of course don't tell the spendthrift Liberals who want everyone to believe the masdive deficits soon to be seen have a Conservative stamp on it. The reality is I care about a 1.9b surplus as much as a 3-4b deficit. Trying to hit the zero mark on a 300 billion dollar budget is not practical. In my eyes getting within a few billion is balanced.

I guess that depends on who you are addressing with your blanketed, stereotypical comments that are meant as a personal insult. If it's me by chance then I'll help you out and let you know that I've been in every continent on this planet and deal with people from various countries on a weekly basis. With that said, don't let my facts stop you from getting in the way of your personal insults.

Or did Chretien tutor him on how to make a lofty election promise that he had no intention of keeping....i.e like Chretien saying he would get rid of the GST

Great article Capricorn. This really drives the point home that for the Liberals this was a political/election issue. Now that they are in lower the urgency is gone and reality has set it. Again, I don't think this was the key issue that made people vote for Trudeau but it certainly speaks volumes about what he will say or promise just to get in

Let me help you out. The Conservative camp has always advocated for a slow, methodical process whereas the Liberals campaigned on lofty numbers that could only be achieved by rushing the system. Now that they are in they realize their goals can't be met due to the details involved. The problem is they campaigned and won based on getting this large number in. Conversely the Conservatives were made out to be the bad guy with their lower yet realistic numbers. I'm not saying Trudeau would have lost the election if he had lower numbers but the point is that he used his lofty targets to pander to the crowd. That's dishonest and needs to be addressed.

I guess 'right' isn't the correct word to use since there really isn't an objective right and add to the fact that hindsight is 20/20. My point is that all PM's make their election promises and then feel that since they got elected that the majority of people agree with them on every election promise when I don't feel this is the case. Having this large scale polling result will allow them to evaluate how Canadians truly feel about key issues and will then allow them to make changes to their platform if need be. To me its about being able to provide our leader with the best information possible. With that said, I do feel there will be times when the majority of Canadians will not be in the inner circle and therefore the PM will have to make a tough decision that probably contradicts what the public says. I guess ultimately I don't think that electing a person to be PM should be a carte blanche kind of thing.

This is what happens to any party that has been in power too long. They create a laundry list of enemies but fail to gain supporters. Give Trudeau 10 years like Harper and I guarantee people will be pushing him out the door too.

We would still choose our representatives but it would give us more objective basis to evaluate how they are doing and if they should be re-elected. In my opinion, a large number of people voted for Trudeau only because he was not Stephen Harper, rather than actually voting for his platform. I won't go as far as saying that is the only reason he got in but I do think it was a factor. I know it was the main reason the NDP got in Alberta. The majority aren't liking the moves they are pulling but hey...at least they aren't the PCs.

Interesting site. It is quite impartial as its only looking at the objective broken promises at this point. However this CBC article does outline a few major ones that are about to burst and will be added to the broken list soon enough. Such promises include keeping the deficit at 10B, revenue neutrality on the tax changes, and the CF-18s/our role in Syria. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promises-1.3371721

To be honest I wish there was a better way of actually seeing what Canadians want. Trudeau, Harper and Mulclair all campaigned in different ways and promised certain things. However, I don't think that many and certainly not all the people who voted for Trudeau actually support all 196 promises made. Some people voted for the tax changes, others voted for the refugee claim and others may have voted solely for his personality/looks. My point is that I wonder if there is a way to add more columns to the voting ballot that ask the voters to indicate their position on certain key election topics. This way the elected official will now have a large scale poll that gives him/her objective data showing what Canadians want and not just saying..."I said I would do this and since they voted for me, then I am going to follow through" I understand that at this point that is the only protocol one could take. I just wonder if there is a better way than having these political figures making key decisions based not on what is right but rather on what they promised.

Well said. However an official apology has been made as has compensation. Do you think there needs to be more? Or should I say, do you think there will be more? 100% agree. It would be nice to move forward in a way that truly helps the aboriginal people and gets Canada out of this backwards way of thinking. However, like you said the minute we eliminate the Indian Act the people who are really profiting will lose their edge. I think that Trudeau would be the guy to do something drastic if it was for the better but I fear there is no one on the aboriginal side that would.

Seriously....don't waste your time. He doesn't recognize a surplus unless it came from a Liberal

Wow...a paper by Elizabeth May. And here I thought she would have nothing but good things to say. Of course, speaking of Elizabeth May and your weak attempt to tie a poll to actual votes....you say Elizabeth May is at 78% approval....and how many votes would she get right now?

No kidding. Its easy to be popular with the school kids when you're handing out candy all day. It will be interesting to see how popular he is when the price tag comes in for all of his purchases/promises.

I agree with you when we're talking about an informal setting but these are official names for the organizations.

On the sports topic...I can see the term Redskin being offensive but I don't see how other ones like Chiefs and Blackhawks are. I know a number of First Nations hockey teams that use those very names themselves. If the term is derogatory then why is ok for them to use it? I think it's clearly an example that not all First Nations or Indigenous people find this offensive, rather it's a few squeaky wheels.

That's true. From all the so called insiders that I know, they say that the NDP knows this which is why they are implementing any measure that make the province run the way they want it (like higher minimum wages, carbon taxes, etc) because those things will be harder to reverse. Removing a sales tax will be popular and easily reversed by any incoming party so its probably just a waste of time implementing that.

Perhaps. I still think any government that puts in a sales tax will find themselves voted out at the next election as the opposition would use that as their platform. Hence the reason I think Notley has said there won't be a sales tax on her watch.

Not sure about this but has there ever been a sales tax that was 'temporary'. I have to assume that once its in that it will stay regardless of what fiscal ground we're on.

Is it projected to go that high? Again, its never been much higher than $40 for the last five years. I hear what you're saying though....selling them now didn't do anything other than bolstering the political image.

When would you have sold them? The historical price since 2010 never saw the stock much higher than $40. Since Nov 2010 ( ~1825 days) the stock only saw 279 days where the stock was higher than $36 and only 83 days were over $38. And this is based on the High value of the given day not the closing value. My point being....how much more upside is there above what they sold it for. I don't know much about stocks but I also assume that you can't just pull the trigger on selling that much stock on a moments notice. Not to mention, when they sold the stock the dollar was weaker. They still haven't converted most of the money so they can still realize even more gain in FX. From the outside looking in, I think it was a pretty good time to sell. GM is back running. Jobs are secure. As much as this may have been politically motivated, I would argue it was a safe financial move. I 100% agree here. That was my reason for entering this conversation as I think its ridiculous to have discussions on a few billion dollars when the budget is 290B especially when that budget is derived from forecasts and projections a year out. Not to mention, the unforeseeable issues that can sway the budget. Ultimately there are essentials that need to be covered in the budget but there are always areas in the budget that need to be evaluated and reconsidered and even pushed to see if they are necessary. I believe in efficiency which is why I appreciate the two sides (right and left) battling over what is needed versus what is wanted. The hope is they land where they should but of course that is a moving target. I think I would have to hold my judgement on that still. The GST was first reduced in 2006 where two successive surpluses were seen after that. The second reduction came in 2008 however so did the financial crises. Slowly Canada rebuilt after the crises and we were again able to hit surplus with a low gst. Point being, is that we are able to balance the budget with a low GST however the question is what services does it cost us. Would it be better to have that extra point of GST as a contingency fund or to ensure certain areas are taken care of. Personally, I think that if the government ends up with too much money then services get bloated and inefficient.

I read somewhere that GM was buying 7B in parts from Ontario based companies. The corporate tax as well as the income tax from all those companies as well as from GM itself over the last five years might add up to the loss on the share price though...if not exceed. I'm only guessing. I think this move was more about the bailout of GM/Ontario then an investment

The reality is that politics by nature does involve deception to s certain level. I only assume that the Conservatives would have pushed the sale of the GM stocks into the previous year if they didn't get their surprise surplus. Knowing they didn't need it in that year, they pushed it off to make the next year look better. It's politics...what can you say. Any party in that position would do the same. One thing about the GM sale...and I don't know many of the details but on an elementary level I think the time to sell them was right. When they bought the shares the USD was at par with the loonie. The sale at this time got a 30% bump just from FX which might have been the best this deal was going to see.

Government assets are sold all the time. I can agree that it might be better to separate those items from the budget so that we can see more of the Operating Costs which will allow us to better judge the performance of a given government.

The 5.2B decrease in revenue hasn't been even projected this year. That is my point. They are only projecting a 2.9B decrease in revenue. And yes....its best to hold judgement until the year is over and actual numbers are in. Again I see that you are harping on about 'lies' over the estimate on the revenue. Have you watched the price of oil over the last 5 years....or even the last year. If you have, then you'd have the first clue. For the last 5 years or so the price of oil was around $75 per barrel. The price had tanked in January of 2015 however it wasn't expected to last but it did. Again...they made a projection based on historical numbers and it didn't pan out. Its not a lie...its a projection...a guess....an insight. If its a lie, then why are the Liberals projecting a higher oil number than what is expected now? is that a lie? I have no problem admitting there is a decline of 2.9B in revenue. Numbers don't lie....even though you have tried doing so with your 5.2B claim. I said I would move on to these talking points once you got over your blunder of the 5.2B. Just to be clear, lets recap the conversation so far: - you started out with an OUTLANDISH claim that the Conservatives lied about budget numbers. The article you posted actually explains why the numbers are the way they are but you insisted on thinking that the only explanation was lies. - once we got through your failed attempts of what an upside is and a quick definition of revenue versus costs versus surplus/deficit, then I was able to show you that your claim of 5.2B in lost revenue was not true and that the change in the total budget also had to do with an increase in costs which one can assume has to do with Liberal input. - You also made the claim that that large of revenue loss was never seen before which was correct if you were using your fictional 5.2B number however the correct number of 2.9B loss has been seen as per the examples I gave. - since you now see the error in your ways and wish to deflect from the statistical talking points from which you now come at me with personal and heart wrenching posts about how can I cut from the people who need this money. So clearly you have moved away from the objective arguments (because you really had none) and have moved into a subjective argument which I have no problem in discussing if you wish Is this correct?