Accountability Now

So are you moving on to the next talking points then now that your blunder with the 5.2B has been addressed? Just want to make sure you're up to speed before we move on

It hasn't happened THIS YEAR! The revenue downside is only 2.9B. You still keep messing that up. The costs have gone up by 2.3B. In past years the Conservatives have seen this EXACT same scenario but stepped in to manage the costs how we the Liberals are choosing not to.

Read what you said: So I have shown you examples that you admit (as shown in red) that its revenue upside. The problem I'm having with your jibberish is what do you mean by upside as you keep mixing them up. With all this said, lets look at your most recent post: If you were to read the report, you would see that its NOT 5.2 billion less REVENUE...its 5.2 billion difference in surplus/deficit compared to what was projected in April. The actual revenue is down by 2.9B and the COSTS are up by 2.3B. In 2011-12 the final costs had a loss of 2.8B in revenue but the Conservatives also cut costs by 1.4B to offset this. The difference here is that the Liberals are seeing the same decrease in revenue but are doing nothing about cutting costs. Keep in mind, this report doesn't even include the costs for their other election promises. In 2007-2008, the Conservatives saw another loss of 2.1B in revenue and again cut costs by 1.5B in order to keep the overall change in the profit (i.e. surplus) to -0.6B which brought it from a projected 10.2B surplus down to a 9.6B. To me, that is the sign of a prudent managing government that manages the costs based on incoming revenues. One other important point/question....why is it ok to see revenue increases of 5B but not revenue decreases? Again, do you have a grasp on the factors affecting these numbers? The global economy has been a roller coaster for the last 10 years with oil prices all over the place. If you are ok with the upside of oil/revenue prices, then you have to accept the downside. Unless of course if it doesn't fit your narrative to the partisan politics.

As I posted above, all the info you want in terms of what was budgeted versus actual numbers can be found in the Finance Canada page. Of course, don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracies.

So let me see if I understand you. You are only concerned that there was an increase of 5 billion in revenue to what is projected (aka upside) in this financial year which happened to be before the election. And....you claim that this was politically driven and that to the best of your memory, it has never happened before. Well....lucky for us Finance Canada keeps track of all this information and allows anyone to access it back to at least 1999 (that's as far as I got). In that time frame I found the following years that had a revenue upside close to or over 5 billion: 2013-14 - 7.7 B 2009-10 - 4.7B 2003-04 - 5.1B 2000-01 - 4.9B 1999-00 - 5.8B You will notice that three of the five listed are during the Liberal mandate. Perhaps those ones escaped your convenient memory? The fact is that numbers are budgeted which means they are projected/guessed based on information we have a year out. Anyone that expected the variance to be zero is not realistic. For anyone else that cares....over the past 10 years or so, there were multiple years where the projected budget had a variance from the actual budget by several billion dollars. Again, this information is laid out in the Annual Financial Statements on Finance Canada's website. In these reports they break out the various types of revenues and expenses both citing their budgeted amount and the actual amounts. No conspiracies here folks, just people trying to run a large business known as Canada. http://www.fin.gc.ca/purl/afr-eng.asp

Actually I do. The article posted shows how the forecasts were made and conditions changed. Take the time to read the full budget in order to see the details involved. It's not a simple equationAll you have is conspiracy theories

But it's not misleading....its guessing based on many factors. Sometimes they expect a positive factor that turns negative and vice versa. Sometimes they cancel each other. Until you prove they are deliberately skewing the numbers then you got nothing

Do you accuse your financial planner of "criminal conversion" when your stocks don't amount to what he said they would?

Face palm! It's forecasting. Estimating. Educated guessing. What don't you get about this?

We give them the consent to do this when we elect them. The issue arises when they do something criminal like actual theft

At least you understand this.

This doesn't surprise me with all the factors involved in government revenue and expenditures...especially if those factors are outside of our borders (i.e. Price of oil and the FX of the CDN dollar)

Do you have a citation to back this quote up or would you prefer to retract this statement? Looking at the 2013-14 and 2012-13 numbers alone I can see you're incorrect

No...clearly you have provided the comedy but not understanding what the article that you posted is saying. These are all projections. When the final numbers come in then you can possibly criticize how things are spent. Keep in mind...a good third of this year will be spent with Liberals in control. Your article is already showing a 2 billion dollar difference from their account versus the PBO which came out just days ago.

You go ahead and balance a 290 billion dollar budget that involves many factors involving bothe revenues and expenditures and see if you come within 1%. I love it when I'm within 5% on my estimates for business

The 2015-16 budget was for 290 billion. The projected deficit now is at 3 billion. That is 1% of the total budget....in other words a rounding error.

Wow...what an excellent rebuttal. I can post the definitions for you but that would be like cheating. The article you posted goes into depth talking about said forecasts but the idea is clearly lost on you

All to do with how they forecast

Tell you what...go and look up the words forecast and projections in the dictionary and then maybe you'll realize how stupid your comment about lies is

I thought that insulting politicians with inappropriate language was the way to get ahead. I remember a certain MP from Quebec doing this in the House of Commons and he is now our Prime Minister.

I probably also wouldn't condone the child refusing to leave after being asked to do so by the teacher a number of times. I'm not saying that those actions deserve a beat down however this isn't a case of the child being innocent. I also have to assume there is history with not just this student but the officer involved as well.

Alberta right now is certainly an uncertain place to move to if you are involved in drilling side or any business that profits from drilling activity. However, a number of companies in Alberta that are oilfield related are on the processing side which hasn't seemed to slow down that much. In that regard Edmonton does seem to be fairing a little better than Calgary but I don't know if that will sustain itself. As for the City of Edmonton, its like any other major city in that it has its nice parts and not so nice parts. There are a few spots that are run down and outdated but the downtown area is getting a nice revamp with the new arena district. Also the roads are drastically improving with the new circle road (Henday) and the expansion of the Whitemud. Overall I would say the City is nice but again that will depend on what part you want to live in. Calgary is nice too but isn't without its shady areas. Its more expensive than Edmonton and I find their roads are more congested and make it harder to travel through the city. It is closer to the mountains and has better flights out (if that's of any interest to you) Both cities have the same health care facilities (from what I know) but with that said the Alberta Health care system is probably on par with other provinces in that we have long wait times. It really depends on what health service you need. Apparently we have the best family support services for disabilities in the country but that means nothing if it doesn't apply to you. With all this said, there's some interesting times ahead for Alberta so you could be rolling the dice in making a move at this time. I would like to think that oil will rebound and all will be good but I wouldn't bank on that if you could choose between here and other provinces.

Well said.

I am shrugging my shoulders. It was time for a change. Just like it was time for a change in Alberta when they kicked out the PC party. It happens when you have a party in power too long. For most its 10 years....for Alberta it was 43 years. Harper's only shot at this was resigning a year or two ago and giving someone else with new blood a shot. So yes...I am shrugging my shoulders at this loss since history has shown the swing from right to left and left to right has always occurred. The fact that you think this election somehow sets a new precedent is bizarre. Nothing new here....just another guy talking about change.

LMAO. You still put so much emphasis on the Atlantic seats and now you're adding in the territories. In total these seats add up to 35 which is just a little over 10% of the seats. Lets put this in perspective....even if ALL of these seats went from Liberal to Conservative, the Liberals would still be in power. Its not a monumental or colossal loss. Its a loss. I've shown the numbers to prove this.