Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 It gets rid of Ford but it doesn't eliminate the sentiment that allowed him to get elected. If Doug Holliday gets named interim mayor, much of Ford's agenda will remain the same. The problem here is you actually believe the hype that Ford is a fiscal conservative. That label implies some knowledge about how finances work. Ford has shown time and time again that he has no interest or time for logic, numbers, facts, any of those niggling details. He's all gut feeling and bullheaded ignorance. Fiscal conservatives you can deal with, you can debate. Ford? He's off in his own world. Quote
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Which is why it may be better that Holliday gets the reins. You can't say those things about him. I'd say he was the main guy behind the Labour deals that were signed with the Unions without need for a strike. Even Doug is a bit more level-head than Rob. He's also not as fat so people can't use that against him. He actually lost weight during that Monday weigh-in fiasco earlier this year. Edited November 27, 2012 by Boges Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Which is why it may be better that Holliday gets the reins. You can't say those things about him. I'd say he was the main guy behind the Labour deals that were signed with the Unions without need for a strike. Even Doug is a bit more level-head than Rob. He's also not as fat so people can't use that against him. He actually lost weight during that Monday weigh-in fiasco earlier this year. I don't see DoFo as having any ambition for the mayor's chair. he's spoken publicly in the past about his desire to move into provincial politics. Holyday? I dunno, he strikes me as a sour grump who will take the reigns if forced to, but I doubt he'd seek it out full time. Karen Stintz would be a good pick with solid fisc-con credentials and a record of working with all wings of council, but she's persona non grata in Ford Nation for daring to go against Ford on his wish for magical unicorn-powered subways. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 The problem here is you actually believe the hype that Ford is a fiscal conservative. That label implies some knowledge about how finances work. Ford has shown time and time again that he has no interest or time for logic, numbers, facts, any of those niggling details. He's all gut feeling and bullheaded ignorance. Fiscal conservatives you can deal with, you can debate. Ford? He's off in his own world. Well, other than the Budget Surplus.... But.. yea,,, thats not what hewas voted in on right???? Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Well, other than the Budget Surplus.... But.. yea,,, thats not what hewas voted in on right???? The budget surpluses that are heavily due to the land transfer tax Ford wants to get rid of? Quote
Boges Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) I don't see DoFo as having any ambition for the mayor's chair. he's spoken publicly in the past about his desire to move into provincial politics.True but that was before his lil bro lost his gig. Now who knows. I'd like to see him go against the Evil McGuinty empire myself. Holyday? I dunno, he strikes me as a sour grump who will take the reigns if forced to, but I doubt he'd seek it out full time. Well he was mayor of Etobicoke before the merger. I would only see him as a mayor until 2014 or a Byelection. Karen Stintz would be a good pick with solid fisc-con credentials and a record of working with all wings of council, but she's persona non grata in Ford Nation for daring to go against Ford on his wish for magical unicorn-powered subways. I do like her. I think Ford was being rather unreasonable about the Subway claims. That being said, haven't a number of Scarborough Councillors flip-flopped on their intent on getting a Subway out to Scarberia? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/ttc-to-study-scarborough-subway/article4650520/ Edited November 27, 2012 by Boges Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Really? I was under the impression it was the massive saving via garbage collection, Union negotiations and more! Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Really? I was under the impression it was the massive saving via garbage collection, Union negotiations and more! Nope. Surplus figures released late Monday show higher revenues from the land transfer tax ($99 million), reduced backlog in property tax assessments ($31 million), investment earnings ($22 million), TTC ridership growth ($19 million), and reduced debt service costs ($21 million). In all, higher revenues accounted for $198 million of the surplus. David Miller also posted several surpluses. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, The STAR is widely reported as posting the Truth about ROb Ford... Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Yes, The STAR is widely reported as posting the Truth about ROb Ford... So you think the Star is lying about the budget numbers that they get from city staff? Edited November 27, 2012 by Black Dog Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Different source, same numbers: Surging TTC ridership, higher than expected land transfer tax revenues and profitable investment earnings helped drive the city’s 2011 surplus to $292.7-million. Details of the unexpected windfall — $138-million higher than forecast in September — are contained in a report released late Monday night in which municipal staff urge council to use the lion’s share of the savings to pay for TTC capital projects, such as new streetcars. According to the report, TTC ridership growth generated a $19-million surplus at the commission in 2011, the tax on new home purchases brought in $99-million more than expected, while supplementary taxes added $31-million to revenues and investments made $22-million more. Edited November 27, 2012 by Black Dog Quote
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Different source, same numbers: Yea but the Nat'l Post is a left wing rag doncha know? Geeze BD, do keep up. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Yea but the Nat'l Post is a left wing rag doncha know? Geeze BD, do keep up. Right I forgot. They all lying. Quote
Shady Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 You knew that the lynch mob was gonna get Ford any way they could. They questioned the legitimacy of his victory from the very beginning. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Right I forgot. They all lying. Yup: "Toronto’s 2011 year-end surplus is a whopping $292-million – $138-million more than city staff forecast when council signed off on this year’s contentious budget, The Globe and Mail has learned" A new and improved budget 2x higher than expected.... THATS how finances are managed.... 138Million more... WITH the double-dip land-transfer tax taken INTO account! Please.. FInance 101 Quote
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 You knew that the lynch mob was gonna get Ford any way they could. They questioned the legitimacy of his victory from the very beginning. I wonder, just what the hell does that mean? Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Yup: "Toronto’s 2011 year-end surplus is a whopping $292-million – $138-million more than city staff forecast when council signed off on this year’s contentious budget, The Globe and Mail has learned" A new and improved budget 2x higher than expected.... THATS how finances are managed.... 138Million more... WITH the double-dip land-transfer tax taken INTO account! Please.. FInance 101 What are you even talking about? It was higher than expected revenues (largely the land transfer tax) that drove up the surplus over earlier projections. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 You knew that the lynch mob was gonna get Ford any way they could. They questioned the legitimacy of his victory from the very beginning. Indeed! Its not Democracy until its THIER democracy.. SImply sickening... It will however only unite the right further... Maybe its a good thing in the long run... Quote
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Yup: "Toronto’s 2011 year-end surplus is a whopping $292-million – $138-million more than city staff forecast when council signed off on this year’s contentious budget, The Globe and Mail has learned" A new and improved budget 2x higher than expected.... THATS how finances are managed.... 138Million more... WITH the double-dip land-transfer tax taken INTO account! Please.. FInance 101 Mayor Miller was better....and thats gotta hurt huh? http://metronews.ca/voices/ford-for-toronto/127864/ford-surplus-miller/ Snip.... Speaking to reporters on Monday, Mayor Rob Ford credited the city’s recently-announced $292 million budget surplus to… um, himself, mostly. “This tax-and-spend mentality of the previous administration is over,” he said. “People know I mean business. I was elected to find efficiencies and that’s what I’ve done.” Budget chief Mike Del Grande echoed the mayor, claiming Ford’s surplus differs from the year-end windfalls delivered by Mayor David Miller in the last years of his term because Ford’s extra cash comes from savings, as opposed to revenue growth. We’re back to the idea that Miller, the budget incompetent, found money under the couch cushions. But really: that’s not true. A close look at budget variance reports for 2010 and 2011, reflected in the chart above, shows that Ford’s first surplus looks a lot like Miller’s last surplus. In both cases, the major piece of the windfall comes from the Land Transfer Tax. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 Mayor Miller was better....and thats gotta hurt huh? http://metronews.ca/...surplus-miller/ Snip.... Speaking to reporters on Monday, Mayor Rob Ford credited the city’s recently-announced $292 million budget surplus to… um, himself, mostly. “This tax-and-spend mentality of the previous administration is over,” he said. “People know I mean business. I was elected to find efficiencies and that’s what I’ve done.” Budget chief Mike Del Grande echoed the mayor, claiming Ford’s surplus differs from the year-end windfalls delivered by Mayor David Miller in the last years of his term because Ford’s extra cash comes from savings, as opposed to revenue growth. We’re back to the idea that Miller, the budget incompetent, found money under the couch cushions. But really: that’s not true. A close look at budget variance reports for 2010 and 2011, reflected in the chart above, shows that Ford’s first surplus looks a lot like Miller’s last surplus. In both cases, the major piece of the windfall comes from the Land Transfer Tax. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. YEa Smarty-pants.... Now what was Millers debt load??? Why was Toronto broke????????????? Quote
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Indeed! Its not Democracy until its THIER democracy.. SImply sickening... It will however only unite the right further... Maybe its a good thing in the long run... Most on the right are saying how stupid Ford was to let it get o this point. And plenty of those are also saying he best not run again because even though he had support, he has proven too stupid to be the Mayor. Youd be wise to listen to those ones. Edited November 27, 2012 by guyser Quote
guyser Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 YEa Smarty-pants.... Now what was Millers debt load??? Why was Toronto broke????????????? LOL! If i am a smarty pants, by means of showing you Millers surplus was bigger, may I comment what that woild make you? I best not. But Miller was the spending lefty wasnt he? To bad even that has been debunked. This is easier than convcting Ford of stupidity! Keep T-ing them up, plenty here who can hit them out of the park Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 YEa Smarty-pants.... Now what was Millers debt load??? Why was Toronto broke????????????? It wasn't. Never was. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 The Lefties dont think they are Broke till they cant borrow any more..... Typical..... Quote
Black Dog Posted November 27, 2012 Report Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) The Lefties dont think they are Broke till they cant borrow any more..... Typical..... Nope. You're not broke until you don't have any money to pay your debts. Every year, Toronto takes in about three times as much in revenue as it owes. Broke? Not even close. FINANCE 101! Edited November 27, 2012 by Black Dog Quote
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.