CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 The Conservative government is already cutting costs faster and more deeply than planned, with new data showing Ottawa has quietly trimmed overall government spending by 3 per cent.That’s the conclusion of a new report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, which reviewed all government spending over the first six months of the current fiscal year. The 3 per cent decrease suggests Ottawa is on track to beat its plan to hold total spending growth to 1.5 per cent this fiscal year. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-waste-no-time-hitting-brakes-on-spending-watchdog-finds/article2298838/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2298838 Like we said all along. The cuts will come when Harper gets his majority. 3% down, 10% more in the upcoming budget, and hopefully 50% more by the time Harper's 8 years of majority rule are up! Quote
PIK Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Time for one world goverment,with harper as leader. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Topaz Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Since it was the Harper and the Tories who got Canada into a mess, even before the recession of 2008 happen, its their duty to clean up their mess BUT if they go too deep and Canadians suffer for it, it will come back on them. All this spending they have done, I really like to know where the money went and how deep it is. Maybe they realize with unemployment high and boomers retiring and corp tax at 15% they don't have the revenue coming in and more going out. Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Party's over. Spending will be up in 2012. Edited January 12, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 Party's over. Spending will be up in 2012. What are you talking about? Where does it say that in your link? Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 What are you talking about? Where does it say that in your link? They project a 1.5% increase in spending. Quote
Moonbox Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Since it was the Harper and the Tories who got Canada into a mess, even before the recession of 2008 happen, its their duty to clean up their mess BUT if they go too deep and Canadians suffer for it, it will come back on them. Spending was increasing at the same rate under Martin as it was under Harper in his early days. It's typical Topaz logic though to say, "We need to reduce spending, but we don't want to see Canadians suffer for it." Topaz's angle is that Harper and the conservatives are bad because they spent too much, but they're even worse because they're reducing spending now.... 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
fellowtraveller Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 They project a 1.5% increase in spending. The next sentence says that they have actually cut by 3% in the first six months. Neither are hard numbers, since they are referring to the fiscal year which will end March 31, 2012. Neither refers to revenue projections. and what really matters is the effect on the deficit. I don't really care what they do as long as revenue exceeds expenses by a significant amount util the national debt is eliminated, then they can be equal after that. Quote The government should do something.
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 They project a 1.5% increase in spending. They projected a 1.5% increase in spending. They are doing much better than that projection after the first half of the year. Quote
mentalfloss Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) They projected a 1.5% increase in spending. They are doing much better than that projection after the first half of the year. For now. What's more reprehensible is the fact that two thirds of the federal agencies aren't revealing what they had to cut to get there. Not exactly the kind of transparency the CPC championed itself it to be, but we all know how well they keep up with transparency measures. Edited January 12, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 The next sentence says that they have actually cut by 3% in the first six months. Neither are hard numbers, since they are referring to the fiscal year which will end March 31, 2012. Neither refers to revenue projections. and what really matters is the effect on the deficit. I don't really care what they do as long as revenue exceeds expenses by a significant amount util the national debt is eliminated, then they can be equal after that. I suspect revenue will be up from the effects of inflation, 600,000 new jobs, and higher corporate profits. I disagree about the debt, we just need to spend better. It seems like a waste to not take advantage of the ability to borrow at under 1% interest. Just spend it on financial assets, infrastructure, and REAL private sector job creation instead of welfare and bureaucrat jobs. Also paying off all our debt would make the CAD extremely strong and negatively impact our trade balance. Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) For now. What's more reprehensible is the fact that two thirds of the federal agencies aren't revealing what they had to cut to get there. Not exactly the kind of transparency the CPC championed itself it to be, but we all know how well they keep up with transparency measures. You obviously know very little about government. First of all, fed departments aren't representatives of the CPC. And do you not understand how ridiculous you sound blaming the conservatives for this lack of transparency when the only reason transparency is questioned is because of the conservative created PBO? Edited January 12, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
Smallc Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I'm encouraged by this. Let's hope the apparent upcoming cuts to DND don't cut into capabilities in a big way. Quote
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 What's more reprehensible is the fact that two thirds of the federal agencies aren't revealing what they had to cut to get there. Not exactly the kind of transparency the CPC championed itself it to be, but we all know how well they keep up with transparency measures. apparently the OP speaks to a "payoff on austerity" based simply upon cuts - cuts for cuts sake... without knowing what's been cut and the impact on Canadians. Based on a report covering only the first half of the fiscal year. My anecdotal experience with 2 large national firms had processes that reviewed/approved expenditures in a 'mid-March' timeframe; i.e., most new fiscal year spending, based on the current year's approvals, happened in the latter part of the year. Oh wait, Parliamentary Budget Officer Page also states: Some federal spending may be pushed back to the second half of the fiscal year. But what is being cut and the impact it has on Canadians is largely unknown because two-thirds of all departments aren’t providing adequate disclosure, Page said in another report. ah yes, presumed Conservative partisan "payoff" based upon unknown cuts and unknown impacts, with possible increased second-half spending... following along the lines of other large corporation department/division principles like, "spend it or lose it"; like, "spend it or next years budget will automatically be lower". Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Based on a report covering only the first half of the fiscal year. My anecdotal experience with 2 large national firms had processes that reviewed/approved expenditures in a 'mid-March' timeframe; i.e., most new fiscal year spending, based on the current year's approvals, happened in the latter part of the year. Oh wait, Parliamentary Budget Officer Page also states: Cool story Waldo. Oh wait, Based on data from the first half of the year, total federal expenditures decreased 3.0 per cent compared to the same period in the previous fiscal year. http://www.parl.gc.ca/PBO-DPB/documents/Expenditure_Monitor_2011Q2_EN.pdf Edited January 12, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Oh wait, quite... yes! Let's wait for transparency to realize just what's actually been cut, what actual impacts there are. Of course you missed the salient point I offered; that, typically, within year budgets are allocated towards the beginning of the second quarter... that the majority of a years spending occurs thereafter, in the second half of the fiscal year... just like PBO Page suggests as a possibility. sorry to rain down upon your, "unknown cuts, unknown impacts", austerity payoff! Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) quite... yes! Let's wait for transparency to realize just what's actually been cut, what actual impacts there are. I called for 50% cuts in the OP and you think I care what was cut from this 3%? Of course you missed the salient point I offered; that, typically, within year budgets are allocated towards the beginning of the second quarter... that the majority of a years spending occurs thereafter, in the second half of the fiscal year... just like PBO Page suggests as a possibility. How did I miss your "salient" point? I just responded to it. The 3% decrease is based on a comparison with THE SAME PERIOD last year (ie. the same would have been true of the spending last year up to this point). Come on Waldo, try to keep up. Edited January 12, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I called for 50% cuts in the OP and you think I care what was cut from this 3%? clearly you don't care - that's the point. You simply puffed-up and presumed to shout "austerity payoff", without any regard or consideration to what's been cut and resulting impacts. You don't care what's been cut... clearly, because you don't know... no one knows. Apparently, in your world, the historical lack of Harper Conservative fiscal conservatism, now shifts into "austerity fiscal management", based simply upon a single half-year report, the foundation of which provides no transparency, no accountability; while at the same time, there exists a possibility that the second half of the year may contain increased spending - per the PBO Page comment quoted. Cuts for cuts sake! How did I miss your "salient" point? I just responded to it.Come on Waldo, try to keep up. read it again; my salient point (based on the anecdotal reference I made and identified as anecdotal), was to suggest a likelihood of increased second half of the year spending... of course, I supplemented my anecdote with the actual quote from PBO Page that spoke to the same likelihood/possibility of increased second half spending. c'mon CPCFTW, try to keep up. Quote
Shady Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I called for 50% cuts in the OP and you think I care what was cut from this 3%? How did I miss your "salient" point? I just responded to it. The 3% decrease is based on a comparison with THE SAME PERIOD last year (ie. the same would have been true of the spending last year up to this point). I wouldn't waste your time. You're trying to discuss budgets and economics with somebody that thinks there is such a thing as a permanent construction job, and who's idea of smart spending is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called green energy subsidies, in which the recipients of said subsidies quickly go bankrupt. Quote
jacee Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Spending cuts ... pffft Political smoke and mirrors. It all depends how Harper defines "spending". Quite a lot of "spending" is hidden as Flaherty's "tax credits" for politically selected target groups: In his first few federal budgets, Mr Flaherty created a wide range of tax breaks aimed at specific elements of the population. Groups on the receiving end of new deductions included construction workers, public transit riders, seniors and parents of sporty kids. ... Some of the credits – like the $725-million a year n lost revenue for an employee stock deduction – are often criticized as perks for the rich. Yet other deductions, such as the Child Tax Credit, are geared toward lower-income families. Toby Sanger, senior economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, said in an era of restraint, he believes all sides of the political spectrum should be able to agree that these credits need a review.“ It makes the tax system more complicated and people end up getting accountants,” he said. “Frankly, the spending would be a lot more effective if they just spent it directly.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flahertys-tax-credits-cost-ottawa-billions/article2296695/?service=mobile But then Harper couldn't claim to be cutting spending. Smoke and mirrors ... Edited January 12, 2012 by jacee Quote
Shady Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 Smoke and mirrors ... The only thing that's smoke and mirrors is the occupy movement. Pretty much dead now. Thank God. Quote
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 The only thing that's smoke and mirrors is the occupy movement. Pretty much dead now. Thank God. nice thread drift Quote
waldo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 I wouldn't waste your time. You're trying to discuss budgets and economics with somebody that thinks there is such a thing as a permanent construction job, and who's idea of smart spending is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called green energy subsidies, in which the recipients of said subsidies quickly go bankrupt. ah yes, Shady's ready go-to - Solyndra!!! once again: Bush admin approved in terms of placing Solyndra within the final complement of businesses seeking funding - near the end of the Bush presidency. Career civil servants carried the final review process for all Bush admin approved companies through the transition between Bush and Obama admins. As I recall, Solyndra was one of 12 companies (perhaps 16, I can't recall for sure) provided funding - how many of those other companies have gone bankrupt, hey Shady? As for the particular Solyndra bankruptcy itself, the one you so willingly and wantonly attempt to tar Obama with, the cause of that bankruptcy is well understood/documented... the Chinese ate Solyndra's lunch (and the rest of the world) in to-market timeliness and competitiveness of pv solar panels. But wait a minute, all that Chinese supremacy would have funneled on through the timeline of the Bush admin!!! Quote
CPCFTW Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) read it again; my salient point (based on the anecdotal reference I made and identified as anecdotal), was to suggest a likelihood of increased second half of the year spending... of course, I supplemented my anecdote with the actual quote from PBO Page that spoke to the same likelihood/possibility of increased second half spending. c'mon CPCFTW, try to keep up. What the hell man are you trolling or are you really this slow? I already responded this this point twice. Edited January 12, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
fellowtraveller Posted January 12, 2012 Report Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) I suspect revenue will be up from the effects of inflation, 600,000 new jobs, and higher corporate profits. I disagree about the debt, we just need to spend better. It seems like a waste to not take advantage of the ability to borrow at under 1% interest. Just spend it on financial assets, infrastructure, and REAL private sector job creation instead of welfare and bureaucrat jobs. Also paying off all our debt would make the CAD extremely strong and negatively impact our trade balance. The inflation rate for 2011 is about 2.9%, even if they come in at 1.5% increased spending that is nominally a deficit reduction, though of course it does not account for new spending. There is little benefit to Canada in paying heaps of money in interest at any rate. The CDN dollar is already quite strong and I expect it to get stronger yet as the Euro weakens. There is little we can do in this country to affect the valuation of our currency by others, as money market values are largely determined by the perceptions of others as to the relative strength of the economy overall. The alternative is worse. edited to add: if the govt runs surpluses and is unwilling to apply them to debt, then I want a tax reduction. I cannot afford to lend my money to Ottawa. Edited January 12, 2012 by fellowtraveller Quote The government should do something.
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.