Bryan Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Waldo, what you posted confirms exactly what Smallc just told you. The only "contingency" is the buffer that was deliberately calculated for in the budget -- there is no rainy day fund sitting there and there never has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Waldo, what you posted confirms exactly what Smallc just told you. The only "contingency" is the buffer that was deliberately calculated for in the budget -- there is no rainy day fund sitting there and there never has been. and yet the words "set-aside for contingencies" appear directly within the Harper Conservative 2015 budget... that if required (for a rainy-day... as in the kind of rain attached to presuming to meet prior promises to balance the budget ) ... the Harper Conservative budget balanced through weasel moves that include slashing the contingency, assuming oil prices will rise and collecting billions more in Employment Insurance premiums than necessary! per Harper Conservative Finance Minister, Joe Oliver: "The contingency fund is there for unexpected and unavoidable shocks to the system and, you know, the oil price decline – which was a dramatic one – would fall in that category," Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Yup, exactly what you were already told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 I was wrong on the phrase - it can apply here. That said, calling it that doesn't change anything. It's a line item in the budget. Before that budget it didn't exist (at the end of the year it simply becomes part of the surplus an deficit calculation). You can't take money out of something that didn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 This fund is not what people would generally consider a contingency or rainy day fund. The money exists in this fiscal year only, and is simply a budget buffer between surplus and deficit. It isn't what people would normally consider as a rainy day or contingency fund: The budget draws $105-million from Manitoba’s rainy-day fund to pay down debt and support infrastructure spending. That leaves $115-million in a bank account that boasted $864-million in 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/smokers-banks-rainy-day-fund-bankrolling-manitoba-infrastructure-spending/article24195669/ That's why I got the terminology wrong. The above is a more conventional use of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 I was wrong on the phrase - it can apply here. That's why I got the terminology wrong. I'll have to be verrrry careful in how I word this... so as to avoid having my post deleted (as was my first post replying to you). Thanks for recognizing the error over your very numerous responses... in the face of Harper Conservative Finance Minister repeatedly using the very words, "contingency fund" (I simply quoted one example of that use)... it is quite enlightening that, still, anyone could dispute its existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 No money was taken from any fund. That's been my point all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 No money was taken from any fund. That's been my point all along. And Harper says so, so there!...Oh wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 And Harper says so, so there!...Oh wait There was no fund to take money from. A smaller amount was simply put under the 'contingency fund' line item for this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 There was no fund to take money from. A smaller amount was simply put under the 'contingency fund' line item for this year. So the 2 billion was just play money then. OK, I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 So the 2 billion was just play money then. OK, I see. The $2B never existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 The $2B never existed. Perhaps you should refer back to Waldo's post 3127 and read the quote from Joe Oliver. Apparently he thinks it does exist and he should know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Never existed, like the missing 10 million, no it wasn't missed right? Same thing happened under Mulroney, never did find the missing 10 million from the treasury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 Never existed, like the missing 10 million, no it wasn't missed right? I don't know what you're talking about, but no, the extra $2B never existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 1, 2015 Report Share Posted August 1, 2015 I don't know what you're talking about, but no, the extra $2B never existed.Smallc is right. The $2.4 billion swing from the surplus projection to the deficit projection by the PBO and Bank of Canada was completely fabricated by the CPC to pretend they would have a surplus. It never existed. Harper and his party are liars and their supporters are blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/poll-tracker-harper-mulcair-in-close-race-as-campaign-set-to-begin-1.3176101 Looking bad for JT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 I don't know what you're talking about, but no, the extra $2B never existed. Never existed, OK, if you say so. I guess then the budget surplus was doomed from the get go and Harper just lied to us again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 Here we are, the writs have yet to be dropped, and posters are arguing about polls. We have about two and a half months before the federal election. In politics, a week is a lifetime. Does it really matter at all what the polls indicate or do not indicate at this time? Have a pleasant holiday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 In politics, a week is a lifetime. Does it really matter at all what the polls indicate or do not indicate at this time? I don't think that the media coined term "1 week=lifetime" really means that much anymore or it's being used incorrectly. I believe the term was first used to summarize the devastating effects that a bad comment or sudden disclosure of an bad event can have in an election campaign. Or the positive effect that a good debater can have! An excellent example would be Rachel Notley's superb debate performance that hurdled the ANDP to an astounding victory! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 Smallc is right. The $2.4 billion swing from the surplus projection to the deficit projection by the PBO and Bank of Canada was completely fabricated by the CPC to pretend they would have a surplus. It never existed. Harper and his party are liars and their supporters are blind. There is definitely less money in the budget. No money was taken out of any mythical rainy day fund. It simply wasn't allocated under that line item for this fiscal year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 There is definitely less money in the budget. No money was taken out of any mythical rainy day fund. It simply wasn't allocated under that line item for this fiscal year. http://globalnews.ca/news/1952376/back-in-black-harper-sets-out-agenda-with-pre-election-budget/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 http://globalnews.ca/news/1952376/back-in-black-harper-sets-out-agenda-with-pre-election-budget/ A Global reporter not understanding doesn't make you right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 A Global reporter not understanding doesn't make you right. Yes we know, it was all monopoly money. Wait 'till people get issued that for those UCCB checks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 Yes we know, it was all monopoly money. It's real money. It simply wasn't allocated to the contingency fund this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted August 2, 2015 Report Share Posted August 2, 2015 It's real money. It simply wasn't allocated to the contingency fund this year. Which means we have a gutted contingency fund. I guess we can just hope we don't have a contingency...you know, other than trying to win an election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.