So Much For Tory Fiscal Stewardship

[poochy]

Oh you mean like laying off 25000 public service workers? Or dismantling social programs which helped to define the compassion caring nature of Canada built over the course of several generations? that is the heartless uncaring selfish Harper CONSERVATIVE way not THIS Liberal government headed by Justin Trudeau. The nation overwhelmingly elected this government because they did not want the Harper way and its corrupt scandalist uncaring heartless regime so THAT IS WHY.

Btw, is that all statistics to you and other conservative supporters when you propose cuts or encourage cuts or do you try to see faces behind these cuts? Do you realize they are real people behind these numbers and statistics who will suffer or lose their jobs? like little girls and boys and mothers and sisters?

Your posts are nothing but ridiculous talking points and hyperbole. Everything you mention in that first line was done worse by the Chretien liberals, more lay offs, more cuts, you're empty talking points won't change that. That of course isn't to mention the economic crisis the conservatives had to navigate. Unlike the boom time the liberals benefited from, I honestly don't know if you are lying or simply don't know any better.

[CITIZEN_2015]

poochy, You make personal attacks either on the person or his views and this shows your nature that you are not civilized enough to debate the issues rather than attacking the viewpoints of the poster by using insults. So I am not debating with you. And btw, you conveniently ignore the word"THIS" in my post that you quoted written in Capital letters.

that is the heartless uncaring selfish Harper CONSERVATIVE way not THIS Liberal government headed by Justin Trudeau. .

If forcing 25000 our citizens out of work or dismantling compassionate social programs causing millions of our citizens to suffer are ridiculous talking points and hyperbole or ridiculous to object or oppose and be happy that THIS government will avoid then that also say another thing about you.

Edited November 21, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[On Guard for Thee]

It hasn't happened THIS YEAR! The revenue downside is only 2.9B. You still keep messing that up. The costs have gone up by 2.3B.

In past years the Conservatives have seen this EXACT same scenario but stepped in to manage the costs how we the Liberals are choosing not to.

Or they "managed\' the revenue side by robbing the contingency fund or selling off government stocks, at a loss, to try and get a little black ink.

[Michael Hardner]

You can comment on someone's arguments, but saying somebody is lying(or saying that you're not responding to them) is not moving the discussion forward.

Please pay attention.

[Accountability Now]

No but since you said this hasn't happened this year yet so I will get back to you when the year is over but at least you admitted they optimistically overestimated (lied in my view) the revenue side by 2.9B so that I got out of you at least.

The 5.2B decrease in revenue hasn't been even projected this year. That is my point. They are only projecting a 2.9B decrease in revenue. And yes....its best to hold judgement until the year is over and actual numbers are in. Again I see that you are harping on about 'lies' over the estimate on the revenue. Have you watched the price of oil over the last 5 years....or even the last year. If you have, then you'd have the first clue. For the last 5 years or so the price of oil was around $75 per barrel. The price had tanked in January of 2015 however it wasn't expected to last but it did. Again...they made a projection based on historical numbers and it didn't pan out. Its not a lie...its a projection...a guess....an insight. If its a lie, then why are the Liberals projecting a higher oil number than what is expected now? is that a lie?

I have no problem admitting there is a decline of 2.9B in revenue. Numbers don't lie....even though you have tried doing so with your 5.2B claim.

I see that you had no response to my post as who you wish to destroy by proposing cuts of 3B (minimum) to 5B? or admit the fact that it was the Harper way to cut and burn and destroy lives of our citizens not Trudeau's.

I said I would move on to these talking points once you got over your blunder of the 5.2B. Just to be clear, lets recap the conversation so far:

- you started out with an OUTLANDISH claim that the Conservatives lied about budget numbers. The article you posted actually explains why the numbers are the way they are but you insisted on thinking that the only explanation was lies.

- once we got through your failed attempts of what an upside is and a quick definition of revenue versus costs versus surplus/deficit, then I was able to show you that your claim of 5.2B in lost revenue was not true and that the change in the total budget also had to do with an increase in costs which one can assume has to do with Liberal input.

- You also made the claim that that large of revenue loss was never seen before which was correct if you were using your fictional 5.2B number however the correct number of 2.9B loss has been seen as per the examples I gave.

- since you now see the error in your ways and wish to deflect from the statistical talking points from which you now come at me with personal and heart wrenching posts about how can I cut from the people who need this money. So clearly you have moved away from the objective arguments (because you really had none) and have moved into a subjective argument which I have no problem in discussing if you wish

Is this correct?

[Accountability Now]

Or they "managed\' the revenue side by robbing the contingency fund or selling off government stocks, at a loss, to try and get a little black ink.

Government assets are sold all the time. I can agree that it might be better to separate those items from the budget so that we can see more of the Operating Costs which will allow us to better judge the performance of a given government.

[overthere]

There is little doubt now that the pain of Alberta is going to spread and spread hard to the rest of the country.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Acountability on many accounts you are correct so may be I should retract from calling it a lie. May be it is best to call it an overoptimism or overestimation of growth and a pure coincident that it happened in an election year. May be it was just a coincident that they waited until early April 2015 to sell the GM assets (the beginning of 2015-2016 fiscal year) and add 3.4B to the revenue for this year. May be they honestly thought that the budget is balanced in this election year as they promised 4 years ago. I think we are now both happy.

[Accountability Now]

Acountability on many accounts you are correct so may be I should retract from calling it a lie. May be it is best to call it an overoptimism or overestimation of growth and a pure coincident that it happened in an election year. May be it was just a coincident that they waited until early April 2015 to sell the GM assets (the beginning of 2015-2016 fiscal year) and add 3.4B to the revenue for this year. May be they honestly thought that the budget is balanced in this election year as they promised 4 years ago. I think we are now both happy.

The reality is that politics by nature does involve deception to s certain level. I only assume that the Conservatives would have pushed the sale of the GM stocks into the previous year if they didn't get their surprise surplus. Knowing they didn't need it in that year, they pushed it off to make the next year look better. It's politics...what can you say. Any party in that position would do the same.

One thing about the GM sale...and I don't know many of the details but on an elementary level I think the time to sell them was right. When they bought the shares the USD was at par with the loonie. The sale at this time got a 30% bump just from FX which might have been the best this deal was going to see.

[msj]

There is little doubt now that the pain of Alberta is going to spread and spread hard to the rest of the country.

Yes, apparently you would like that, wouldn't you?

Would teach those Albertans who voted NDP and Canadians who voted Liberal a lesson, I suppose.

Of course, governments have little to no control over the world oil price but let's blame everything on new governments.

It's not like the previous government didn't run deficits more times than the surpluses left to them by that previous Liberal government.

[msj]

One thing about the GM sale...and I don't know many of the details but on an elementary level I think the time to sell them was right. When they bought the shares the USD was at par with the loonie. The sale at this time got a 30% bump just from FX which might have been the best this deal was going to see.

Another example of politics leading to poor investment decisions.

I can understand bailing out GM to preserve the tax base.

But selling stock in a company because of an immaterial surplus/deficit amount is just plain stupidity.

This is what Canada has to look forward to though: people who want governments to "balance" the books over a political cycle when there are better methods to be considered (such as just plain old "is the debt to GDP ratio going down or up and why?"). Or perhaps consider that business cycles don't coincide with political cycles.

At any rate, the CPC sold those shares for $35.90 and didn't look bad when the market tumbled thereafter.

But since then the share price is back over $36 while the CDN $ is down another 8% so even in this Harper doesn't look good.

Which is why governments should stay out of public markets - too easy to Monday morning QB it.

[Accountability Now]

Which is why governments should stay out of public markets - too easy to Monday morning QB it.

I read somewhere that GM was buying 7B in parts from Ontario based companies. The corporate tax as well as the income tax from all those companies as well as from GM itself over the last five years might add up to the loss on the share price though...if not exceed. I'm only guessing.

I think this move was more about the bailout of GM/Ontario then an investment

Edited November 22, 2015 by Accountability Now

[msj]

I read somewhere that GM was buying 7B in parts from Ontario based companies. The corporate tax as well as the income tax from all those companies as well as from GM itself over the last five years might add up to the loss on the share price though...if not exceed. I'm only guessing.

I think this move was more about the bailout of GM/Ontario then an investment

Oh, I agree: preserve the tax base was key. Even I would have done what Harper did. Can't blame him for that.

But his government did have complete control over the selling of those shares.

It is almost always better to hold on a little while longer than sell out at the first political opportunity.

But all these twits who go on about debt and deficit as if it is a problem at the federal level (or even in most provinces) is the real problem here.

We would have better decisions being made if people did not freak out over small deficits or surpluses in the range of + or - 10 billion or so.

On a budget of $290 billion and an economy of $1.7+ trillion it is immaterial to borderline trivial.

Which is not to say the government should just waste that money.

It is to say that any balance within that range is effectively a balanced budget so lets focus on what the money is being spent on and whether or not that is effective and efficient.

Also, lets focus on the revenue side to ensure that is effective and efficient (but the CPC wouldn't like the answer to this as they know, since Harper is not dumb, that their precious GST cut was political fiscal stupidity).

[Wilber]

A buck either way is impossible to call on a stock like GM. Even though it is up 20% since I bought some, the reason I keep it is the 4% dividend it is paying. But governments aren't really into investing in a financial sense, no matter how much they may use the word.

[Accountability Now]

But his government did have complete control over the selling of those shares.

When would you have sold them? The historical price since 2010 never saw the stock much higher than $40. Since Nov 2010 ( ~1825 days) the stock only saw 279 days where the stock was higher than $36 and only 83 days were over $38. And this is based on the High value of the given day not the closing value. My point being....how much more upside is there above what they sold it for. I don't know much about stocks but I also assume that you can't just pull the trigger on selling that much stock on a moments notice.

Not to mention, when they sold the stock the dollar was weaker. They still haven't converted most of the money so they can still realize even more gain in FX.

From the outside looking in, I think it was a pretty good time to sell. GM is back running. Jobs are secure. As much as this may have been politically motivated, I would argue it was a safe financial move.

We would have better decisions being made if people did not freak out over small deficits or surpluses in the range of + or - 10 billion or so.

On a budget of $290 billion and an economy of $1.7+ trillion it is immaterial to borderline trivial.

Which is not to say the government should just waste that money.

I 100% agree here. That was my reason for entering this conversation as I think its ridiculous to have discussions on a few billion dollars when the budget is 290B especially when that budget is derived from forecasts and projections a year out. Not to mention, the unforeseeable issues that can sway the budget.

Ultimately there are essentials that need to be covered in the budget but there are always areas in the budget that need to be evaluated and reconsidered and even pushed to see if they are necessary. I believe in efficiency which is why I appreciate the two sides (right and left) battling over what is needed versus what is wanted. The hope is they land where they should but of course that is a moving target.

Also, lets focus on the revenue side to ensure that is effective and efficient (but the CPC wouldn't like the answer to this as they know, since Harper is not dumb, that their precious GST cut was political fiscal stupidity).

I think I would have to hold my judgement on that still. The GST was first reduced in 2006 where two successive surpluses were seen after that. The second reduction came in 2008 however so did the financial crises. Slowly Canada rebuilt after the crises and we were again able to hit surplus with a low gst. Point being, is that we are able to balance the budget with a low GST however the question is what services does it cost us. Would it be better to have that extra point of GST as a contingency fund or to ensure certain areas are taken care of. Personally, I think that if the government ends up with too much money then services get bloated and inefficient.

[msj]

When would you have sold them?

From the outside looking in, I think it was a pretty good time to sell. GM is back running. Jobs are secure. As much as this may have been politically motivated, I would argue it was a safe financial move.

I think they should have held on to them. It was clearly a politically motivated sale which put the doubt of a balanced budgets in many people's minds (which brings us back to the foolishness of worrying over a rounding error).

But then, I suppose any sale will always be considered that anyway so, meh.

When GM is trading at $46 next year it will make a nice footnote somewhere about Harper's so called economics credentials being superseded by political "smarts" that were smart enough to allow him to get beaten by a rookie leader from a third place party.

[Accountability Now]

When GM is trading at $46 next year it will make a nice footnote somewhere about Harper's so called economics credentials being superseded by political "smarts" that were smart enough to allow him to get beaten by a rookie leader from a third place party.

Is it projected to go that high? Again, its never been much higher than $40 for the last five years.

I hear what you're saying though....selling them now didn't do anything other than bolstering the political image.

[Wilber]

When GM is trading at $46 next year it will make a nice footnote somewhere about Harper's so called economics credentials being superseded by political "smarts" that were smart enough to allow him to get beaten by a rookie leader from a third place party.

And if it is trading at $30 next year? It's a stock, US consumer confidence has been going down and one of GM's biggest markets, China is also not doing very well. I've been wrong before but I sure wouldn't bet on it being $46 any time soon, I'll be happy if it stays where it is.

[msj]

And if it is trading at $30 next year? It's a stock, US consumer confidence has been going down and one of GM's biggest markets, China is also not doing very well. I've been wrong before but I sure wouldn't bet on it being $46 any time soon, I'll be happy if it stays where it is.

Then it goes down.

Let's see what the Fed does in December.

If they raise rates I expect GM to go up.

If they don't then it probably won't - and the economy will still suck.

[Wilber]

Then it goes down.

Let's see what the Fed does in December.

If they raise rates I expect GM to go up.

If they don't then it probably won't - and the economy will still suck.

I they raise rates, it will be because the economy is doing better. Good for business but it will also mean a lot of people will start moving more money into fixed income investments for greater security.

[msj]

I they raise rates, it will be because the economy is doing better. Good for business but it will also mean a lot of people will start moving more money into fixed income investments for greater security.

Anyone foolish enough to be influenced by a 0.25% increase in interest rates should not be investing in stocks in the first place.

No, stocks will go up because the US economy is doing well which is why interest rates will also go up.

[Wilber]

Anyone foolish enough to be influenced by a 0.25% increase in interest rates should not be investing in stocks in the first place.

No, stocks will go up because the US economy is doing well which is why interest rates will also go up.

Thats why I have a diversified portfolio. One of us will be wrong.

[Smallc]

Joe Oliver should probably stop writing columns:

https://twitter.com/ParkinsonGlobe/status/669882348268310532