Smallc Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/ottawa-posts-surprise-1-9b-surplus-1.2562055 So much for 8 straight deficits, eh? Get ready for a boost in Conservativr numbers. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/business/ottawa-posts-surprise-1-9b-surplus-1.2562055 So much for 8 straight deficits, eh? Get ready for a boost in Conservativr numbers. How do you miss your forecast by $4 billion? Quote
Smallc Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Posted September 14, 2015 How do you miss your forecast by $4 billion? That's been quite common as long as I've been alive. Under promise and over deliver was always the Liberal way, and I didn't blame them. I don't blame the Conservatives now. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 That's been quite common as long as I've been alive. Under promise and over deliver was always the Liberal way, and I didn't blame them. I don't blame the Conservatives now. Where did the extra savings come from then? Quote
Topaz Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 I can't believe they have a surplus, when they reduced GST, EI was/is in the red, the bombing of ISIS has to be a billion or more, they cut corp taxes, they HAD to dipped into that emergency fund for couples income -splitting, which is going to cost more to do and there still the high interest rate on the national debt! What kind of math are they using , consumers should use the same then the government can't complain about consumer debt! BTW, here the cost of bombing post last year and it has grown since for the US. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/isis-cost_n_5906762.html Quote
Smallc Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Posted September 14, 2015 What you believe is irrelevant. There was a surplus. Quote
segnosaur Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 I can't believe they have a surplus, when they reduced GST, EI was/is in the red, the bombing of ISIS has to be a billion or more, they cut corp taxes, they HAD to dipped into that emergency fund for couples income -splitting, which is going to cost more to do and there still the high interest rate on the national debt! The bombing of ISIS has cost (up to February of this year) ~$122million (non-fixed costs). Estimates are that by next year, the costs may be ~$500 million, far from the "billion or more" you were suggesting. Also, Canada has recently ended its combat mission in Afghanistan, so that partly offsets the cost of the bombings. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadas-war-against-isis-has-cost-122-million-not-including-salaries-and-other-fixed-costs-government-says It is true that they have cut taxes. But, various spending programs that the conservatives began in response to the 2008 recession have started to wind down, which offsets the cuts in taxes. And the economy, while sluggish, has still expanded over the past year. (Slower than we might have liked, and with contractions part of that time, but still an overall growth.) So yeah, its quite likely that the deficit is gone. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 There's no doubt about it though. This is good news for Canadians. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Perhaps Trudeau can now revise his plan to carry deficits if Harper has actually achieved a surplus. I'm waiting though to see exactly what the currents numbers are based on. Did they find some other assets such as GM shares to flog? Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Perhaps Trudeau can now revise his plan to carry deficits if Harper has actually achieved a surplus. I'm waiting though to see exactly what the currents numbers are based on. Did they find some other assets such as GM shares to flog? I'm sure the Liberals will simply say "That small surplus was gained on the backs of the Middle Class!" In other words, minimize the surplus and blame the Tories for gaining it by cuts. It's all BS, but this is an election, and in elections, like war, the truth is the first casualty. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Perhaps Trudeau can now revise his plan to carry deficits if Harper has actually achieved a surplus. He's changed his "plan" several times already - so I think you might be onto something. Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 He's changed his "plan" several times already - so I think you might be onto something. Well on budgetary matters, it's hard to make a firm plan until you see what kid of a mess Harper will leave behind him. i.e. selling GM shares and raiding the rainy day fund to attempt surpluses are one timers. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 That's been quite common as long as I've been alive. Under promise and over deliver was always the Liberal way, and I didn't blame them. I don't blame the Conservatives now. I do remember the Liberals doing that. I bet the CPC tried really darn hard to get those budget numbers into surplus territory so they can say they balanced the budget. It's all about numbers and optics in politics. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 I'm sure the Liberals will simply say "That small surplus was gained on the backs of the Middle Class!" In other words, minimize the surplus and blame the Tories for gaining it by cuts. It's all BS, but this is an election, and in elections, like war, the truth is the first casualty. I agree. There's been some really crazy stuff that our government has done, not in a good way, to hit "target numbers" so they can look good during this election. Friggin' politics man. This world is so screwed up Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
ToadBrother Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 I agree. There's been some really crazy stuff that our government has done, not in a good way, to hit "target numbers" so they can look good during this election. Friggin' politics man. This world is so screwed up You think it's screwed up now, imagine a hung parliament where the leading party maybe has ten seats over the the third party. Now that would be screwed up. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) I agree. There's been some really crazy stuff that our government has done, not in a good way, to hit "target numbers" so they can look good during this election. Friggin' politics man. This world is so screwed up Not to mention past criticisms of the government for changing accounting methods to make it impossible to compare records historically. There's a discussion of those changes in this Macleans article from last year http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-mystery-behind-canadas-shrinking-deficit/ "You can see the effect of the 2012 accounting change here: some tax expenditures were (sensibly) re-classified as spending, so both spending and revenues increased, leaving the balance unchanged. I would very much like to tell you what has been going on on the expenditure side, but two accounting changes in two years have clouded the situation ... I have no strong views about what accounting rules the Department of Finance should use; all I ask is that the historical series be restated using the current rules. This is something that they won’t do (I asked), and they probably believe that changing the definitions and not revising past data is accepted practice—after all, Statistics Canada does it all the time." This should be a major concern for people, but nobody pays close enough attention to these things to care. Edit: I brought this up last year when the article was published. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23897-harpers-creative-accounting/ Edited September 14, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 You think it's screwed up now, imagine a hung parliament where the leading party maybe has ten seats over the the third party. Now that would be screwed up. Hey, maybe they can all form a coalition together. That way, there'd be no opposition. Wouldn't that be fun! Yay!!!! Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Canada_First Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Hey, maybe they can all form a coalition together. That way, there'd be no opposition. Wouldn't that be fun! Yay!!!! Thats a dictatorship. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Thats a dictatorship. No way man, it's not a dictatorship if you vote them in! One big government, elected every 4-5 years, at least they'll stop pretending. This dictatorship of smiling, lying, corrupt scumbags is from every party, let's just cut the middle-man. C'mon, whaddya say? REVOLUTION!!! WOOO!!! Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 The Conservatives were more than willing to interfere with an independent audit of the Senate... I wouldn't put it past them to fudge the books. But a small deficit or a small surplus really doesn't make a world of difference in the grand scheme of things... Quote
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 This also helps Mulcair in that he said he would balance the budget. Quote
ToadBrother Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 Thats a dictatorship. I don't recall BC being a dictatorship, even when all but two of its MLAs from 2001 to 2005 where members of the same party. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 But a small deficit or a small surplus really doesn't make a world of difference in the grand scheme of things...$1.9 billion surplus off a $5 billion deficit the year prior. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 I don't recall BC being a dictatorship, even when all but two of its MLAs from 2001 to 2005 where members of the same party. LOL it was!! That showed the disaster that "first past the post" can turn into. Quote
The_Squid Posted September 14, 2015 Report Posted September 14, 2015 $1.9 billion surplus off a $5 billion deficit the year prior. Yeah... that's why I will wait for the next non-CPC government to release the actual numbers once they form government before I believe them. 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.