Conservative Budget Surplus

[Accountability Now]

Because they now have sufficient revenue to run the Government of Canada.

Um....no. Objectively it should be looked at like a business. Debt is a real thing that shows up on the balance sheet. Even if your year shows a profit it doesn't mean the state of the company is all roses if the liabilities are that high.

Of course employees (voters) will gladly take bonuses not knowing it actually is driving the company in the ground.

[Guest Derek L]

Um....no. Objectively it should be looked at like a business. Debt is a real thing that shows up on the balance sheet. Even if your year shows a profit it doesn't mean the state of the company is all roses if the liabilities are that high.

Of course employees (voters) will gladly take bonuses not knowing it actually is driving the company in the ground.

Big difference between a company that’s suppose to be profitable versus a government that ideally is revenue neutral.

[Accountability Now]

Big difference between a company thats suppose to be profitable versus a government that ideally is revenue neutral.

Not really but you do bring up a good point....it's supposed to be neutral. How about all the years it was below neutral? Those just disappear? Edited November 14, 2013 by Accountability Now

[waldo]

Surely the timing of the surplus is suspect.

ya think? We didn't hear a peep out of Harper on this at the recent convention... and now... when they really need something to get the media talking in another direction... well, yes, timing is very suspect.

notwithstanding questionable forecasts from Flaherty in the past, some of the talking head speculation on the timing says it makes no sense to give the Opposition parties an early heads-up like this... as it gives the Opposition an extended opportunity to work around the forecast numbers and develop their own spending priorities to present as alternatives. In that regard, this move by Harper Conservatives may just suggest they're prepared to introduce the "goody bag" early... soon... and use the forecast as the foundation to presume to pay for the goodies.

[Moonlight Graham]

He should also take the credit for massive deficits when they weren't necessary... he got us in to an economic mess just to be a hero when the economy recovers? It's all a bit rich...

It's called Keynesian economics 101. Deficits during the bad times and surplus to pay back debt in the good times.

[Spiderfish]

He should also take the credit for massive deficits when they weren't necessary... he got us in to an economic mess just to be a hero when the economy recovers? It's all a bit rich...

You mean to be a hero like Martain tried to be during the 2006 election campaign, where the Liberal leader made 24 billion dollars in new spending promises in less than 3 weeks in an effort to hold onto power. I wonder how many of those promises would have been kept had he won? I wonder where all that money would have come from??? Hmmm....

[The_Squid]

You mean to be a hero like Martain tried to be during the 2006 election campaign, where the Liberal leader made 24 billion dollars in new spending promises in less than 3 weeks in an effort to hold onto power. I wonder how many of those promises would have been kept had he won? I wonder where all that money would have come from??? Hmmm....

I'm not concerned with 2006 and some empty promises by a desperate politician. I am concerned with the dismal track record of the government in power this far.

They didn't cause the fiscal crisis. They caused it to be worse. They caused us to go deeper into deficit when there was no need for it. Their fiscal record is not impressive whatsoever.

[Boges]

There was broad support from all parties to go into deficit. I'm sure if you ask the NDP, they think the attempt to eliminate the deficit is wrong-headed.

The CPC had to be dragged and kicking to employing Keynesian economics.

[Spiderfish]

They didn't cause the fiscal crisis. They caused it to be worse. They caused us to go deeper into deficit when there was no need for it. Their fiscal record is not impressive whatsoever.

I appreciate your opinion, however considering the state of the world economy over the last 5 years I think we fared pretty well. I agree with a forecasted budget surplus, it's time to start working on the debt.

[Topaz]

It goes to show that Harper can't satisfy people like you. You complain about deficits, and now you complain about balanced budgets and surpluses. Be quiet.

Surpluses? Weren't the Tories, and maybe you, remarked where the surpluses came from the Liberals??? As far as satisfying people, looks like some Tory supporters don't require much from their leader. Since you are in a Tory riding, you be getting some of the surplus.

[Boges]

The Liberals achieved their surpluses because of the infusion of cash from the GST and massive cuts and downloading to the provinces.

I always find it wildly hilarious that Mike Harris is this demon when he tackled Ontario's budget problems in a similar fashion as Paul Martin.

Now look at Ontario. The Ontario Liberals had pledged to eliminate their deficit by 2017 but last week said that probably won't happen because they think spending more money is important.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Big difference between a company that’s suppose to be profitable versus a government that ideally is revenue neutral.

But in all cases government is revenue negative.

Edited November 14, 2013 by GostHacked

[Shady]

Surpluses? Weren't the Tories, and maybe you, remarked where the surpluses came from the Liberals??? As far as satisfying people, looks like some Tory supporters don't require much from their leader. Since you are in a Tory riding, you be getting some of the surplus.

Sweet! Do they do direct deposit?

[cybercoma]

I'm sure if you ask the NDP, they think the attempt to eliminate the deficit is wrong-headed.

Your certainty is wrong.

The NDP has had the most balanced budgets of all the parties when you factor in provincial cabinets.

[Shady]

There was broad support from all parties to go into deficit. I'm sure if you ask the NDP, they think the attempt to eliminate the deficit is wrong-headed.

The CPC had to be dragged and kicking to employing Keynesian economics.

Exactly. The opposition tried to bring down the government because they weren't satisfied with the level of stimulus spending during the recession. Shortly afterwards, the opposition then has the nerve to complain about deficits when the spending they insisted on was agreed to. It's Orwellian.

[Shady]

Your certainty is wrong.The NDP has had the most balanced budgets of all the parties when you factor in provincial cabinets.

It's much easier to balance a budget when a provincial government receives billions in federal welfare.

[GostHacked]

It's much easier to balance a budget when a provincial government receives billions in federal welfare.

Where do the feds get their money?

[Shady]

Where do the feds get their money?

From the "have" provinces.

[GostHacked]

From the "have" provinces.

Ok, which provinces 'have'?? Any out of them out of debt?

[Shady]

Ok, which provinces 'have'?? Any out of them out of debt?

Nope. Which makes it even more ridiculous.

[GostHacked]

Nope. Which makes it even more ridiculous.

It makes your statement of the 'haves' ridiculous. But in the end what will it take for a country to get out of debt? Who does Canada owe all this money too? Where are we borrowing it from? I support the idea of the surplus being used for debt payment and some can be put back into improving infrastructure. But what does this surplus really mean in the overall scheme of things?

I am pretty confident the surplus will be squandered like many other things.

[Boges]

I don't think it's realistic to expect debt to be removed.

You already have people outraged that the Feds are projecting a $3 billion surplus. It means they're taxing too much.

[Shady]

It makes your statement of the 'haves' ridiculous. But in the end what will it take for a country to get out of debt? Who does Canada owe all this money too? Where are we borrowing it from? I support the idea of the surplus being used for debt payment and some can be put back into improving infrastructure. But what does this surplus really mean in the overall scheme of things?I am pretty confident the surplus will be squandered like many other things.

It's not my statement, it's the current system of equalization/provincial welfare. And I agree it's ridiculous.

[Smallc]

I don't think it's realistic to expect debt to be removed.

You already have people outraged that the Feds are projecting a $3 billion surplus. It means they're taxing too much.

How can it mean they're taxing too much when they owe $600B?

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not concerned with 2006 and some empty promises by a desperate politician. I am concerned with the dismal track record of the government in power this far.

They didn't cause the fiscal crisis. They caused it to be worse. They caused us to go deeper into deficit when there was no need for it. Their fiscal record is not impressive whatsoever.

Squid - you now appear to be an ultra-Conservative. The media line at the time was that the Conservatives didn't want to spend as much as they did but the opposition parties forced their hand. The NDP was complaining that they didn't spend enough. The Liberals complained that they weren't spending it fast enough. Given that, I assume you'll be voting for Harper again?