ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 I'm aware of that TB but thought the GM shares were included in the earlier projections. As for comparing spending cuts between Harper/Martin, I've always felt Martin's cuts were a bit too harsh but I also understand how necessary they were in the context of that era. With that being said those cuts are probably still visible in infrastructure and strained health services. Harper's cuts seemed more gradual and he always mentions preferring cutting growth of spending. However they probably attributed to the recession by taking stimulus out of the economy. The problem is that in the real world, if you sell an asset for less than your purchase price, you cannot either claim 1. that it belongs in revenue or 2. that it is anything other than a capital loss. Now, mind you, a company can carry a capital loss over to reduce your taxable income, but that's an income tax concept, and not applicable to a government. If you really think about it, if you're a government and you sell an a non-fixed asset, then you can't even use depreciation to make it look a little less valuable, then all you've done is in fact shore up your cash and actually take an overall hit. That's why I doubt, at the end, 2015-16 would have been balanced, save for the application of governments' frequently goofy accounting practices. In the private sector, if you tried to pass off a fire sale of assets that produced a cash bump but left the company with a net capital loss as "revenue", I suggest you might end up in front of a securities commission answering some hard questions, with your shareholders just as unhappy. Quote
Argus Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Anyone else wondering if we are being set up for even bigger deficits than stated during the election? I said as much before the election. It's what McGuinty did, leading Ontario deeper and deeper into debt year after year, and all those advisers who helped him are now in Ottawa helping Justin. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 I said as much before the election. It's what McGuinty did, leading Ontario deeper and deeper into debt year after year, and all those advisers who helped him are now in Ottawa helping Justin. Quick. Bring up the Ontario Liberals again!!!! The Federal Liberals get some blame for acting like the Tories' numbers were truthful. The Tories get most of the blame for blatantly passing off BS numbers as real. But somehow, it's Dalton McGuinty's fault. Quote
Argus Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Quick. Bring up the Ontario Liberals again!!!! I've been saying for many months how strongly Justin Trudeau reminds me of Dalton McGuinty, and so far everything he's done is bang on. He has the same adviser, and today I read that a flood of Ontario Liberal advisers and workers are headed for Ottawa. Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne is expecting an exodus of her staffers from Queen’s Park to Parliament Hill – and is even encouraging it. Late last month, she gathered about 450 staff members – everyone from ministers’ offices to constituency offices – to the Ontario Room in the Macdonald Block of Queen’s Park and thanked them for helping Justin Trudeau and his federal Liberals win a majority government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/exodus-of-ontario-liberal-staffers-to-ottawa-set-to-begin/article27181936/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 I've been saying for many months how strongly Justin Trudeau reminds me of Dalton McGuinty, and so far everything he's done is bang on. He has the same adviser, and today I read that a flood of Ontario Liberal advisers and workers are headed for Ottawa. Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne is expecting an exodus of her staffers from Queen’s Park to Parliament Hill – and is even encouraging it. Late last month, she gathered about 450 staff members – everyone from ministers’ offices to constituency offices – to the Ontario Room in the Macdonald Block of Queen’s Park and thanked them for helping Justin Trudeau and his federal Liberals win a majority government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/exodus-of-ontario-liberal-staffers-to-ottawa-set-to-begin/article27181936/ Not one word condemning the Tories' concocted figures. Oh no, it's all about Trudeau and the Ontario Liberals It's rather sad to see a hardened partisan willfully ignore his party's sins, and blame a guy who has been in office one week. Quote
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Not one word condemning the Tories' concocted figures. Oh no, it's all about Trudeau and the Ontario Liberals It's rather sad to see a hardened partisan willfully ignore his party's sins, and blame a guy who has been in office one week. A government cooking the books before an election. How novel. Didn't believe the Tory numbers any more than the Liberals. News Flash You can't trust anyones numbers during an election. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 A government cooking the books before an election. How novel. Didn't believe the Tory numbers any more than the Liberals. News Flash You can't trust anyones numbers during an election. Exactly. But when a partisan's defense of an imaginary surplus is to blame a provincial government because, in his view, the guy who just won the election somehow reminds him of provincial leaders, you do have to admit it boggles the mind. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Maybe not but it is providing a perfect excuse. Perfectly legitimate, it seems. The economy sucks, so it's time to stimulate it. Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) We already know he has planned on three years of deficits, I'm just wondering how much the number is going to go up and how many more years. I never did believe in 10B for three years then a balanced budget anyway. Believe it less now.It was not 3 $10B deficits.It was -$10B, -$9B, -$6B and then $1B to the positive. To get to the liberal numbers, you have to add ther deficits, account for infrastructure related GDP growth, and subtract the smaller decrease in EI premiums. You also have to start from the earlier PBO numbers (between those from the PBO now and the Conservative budget numbers. Edited November 11, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Smallc Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Quick. Bring up the Ontario Liberals again!!!! The Federal Liberals get some blame for acting like the Tories' numbers were truthful. The Tories get most of the blame for blatantly passing off BS numbers as real. But somehow, it's Dalton McGuinty's fault. Actually, the Liberals did no such thing:https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/The-Liberal-fiscal-plan-and-costing.pdf Top of page 7. The problem is that the numbers are even worse than previously estimated by the PBO. Edited November 11, 2015 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 It was not 3 $10B deficits. It was -$10B, -$9B, -$6B and then $1B to the positive. Oh, So they will be even higher than forecast. To get to the liberal numbers, you have to add ther deficits, account for infrastructure related GDP growth, and subtract the smaller decrease in EI premiums. You also have to start from the earlier PBO numbers (between those from the PBO now and the Conservative budget numbers. No you don't. Debt is debt. No matter how you dress that pig up, it will have to be serviced. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 No you don't. Debt is debt. No matter how you dress that pig up, it will have to be serviced. If you want the real numbers, that's how you get there. If you want to complain, I guess it doesn't really matter. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 No you don't. Debt is debt. No matter how you dress that pig up, it will have to be serviced. No, debt isn't just debt. There are different kinds of debt, and different reasons for generating debt. Quote
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 No, debt isn't just debt. There are different kinds of debt, and different reasons for generating debt. If you are paying interest on it, it is debt. If not, it is a gift. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 If you want the real numbers, that's how you get there. If you want to complain, I guess it doesn't really matter. How you get where. If you don't pay off debt, there is no end, you pay interest forever. Even 40 year mortgages eventually get paid off, but not government debt it seems. I'm not complaining, I'll be dead and then it will be JT's generation and their kids problem, but that doesn't mean I am going to ignore it or make stupid excuses for it. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 How you get where. If you don't pay off debt, there is no end, you pay interest forever. Even 40 year mortgages eventually get paid off, but not government debt it seems. I'm not complaining, I'll be dead and then it will be JT's generation and their kids problem, but that doesn't mean I am going to ignore it or make stupid excuses for it. Governments are not individuals. Some governments have carried debt for decades. The US has carried a continuous debt since the Civil War, and during that time became the most powerful nation in history. Quote
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Governments are not individuals. Some governments have carried debt for decades. The US has carried a continuous debt since the Civil War, and during that time became the most powerful nation in history. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a good idea. What is it about you guys that makes you think it is a good idea to keep paying for nothing for the rest of your lives then pass it on to your kids even though what you borrowed it for hasn't existed for years? Edited November 11, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Author Report Posted November 11, 2015 Just because you can do something doesn't mean it is a good idea. What is it about you guys that makes you think it is a good idea to keep paying for nothing for the rest of your lives then pass it on to your kids even though what you borrowed it for hasn't existed for years? Because what debt can fund isn't "nothing". That's just your oversimplification to the point of absurdity. Quote
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Because what debt can fund isn't "nothing". That's just your oversimplification to the point of absurdity. It's nothing if you tore it down 50 years ago but are still paying interest on it and what you replaced it with. If you just spent it on programs and services it became nothing even sooner. Kind of like borrowing to go on vacation but never paying it off. Edited November 11, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ReeferMadness Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 It's nothing if you tore it down 50 years ago but are still paying interest on it and what you replaced it with. If you just spent it on programs and services it became nothing even sooner. Kind of like borrowing to go on vacation but never paying it off. Did you complain when Harper created the structural deficit by cutting taxes without explaining what programs he would cut to compensate? Did you support Kevin Page when he demanded access to the data he needed to fulfill his role? It's easy to say we shouldn't have a deficit but someone needs to decide either on higher taxes or lower program spending. We'll have to wait and see what Trudeau does on that front. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Did you complain when Harper created the structural deficit by cutting taxes without explaining what programs he would cut to compensate? Did you support Kevin Page when he demanded access to the data he needed to fulfill his role? It's easy to say we shouldn't have a deficit but someone needs to decide either on higher taxes or lower program spending. We'll have to wait and see what Trudeau does on that front. Harper's deficits were largely dictated by the 2008 meltdown and at one point the opposition was complaining he wasn't spending enough. He didn't create the structural deficit but if you want to take issue with the way he handled it, that's fine. He tried to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, the Liberals want to just borrow more money and spend it. Two different approaches to deal with the same problem. It's not that governments run deficits from time to time that bothers me, it's that they plan on never paying it back. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ReeferMadness Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Harper's deficits were largely dictated by the 2008 meltdownNonsense. You can't claim a recession in 2008 is somehow responsible for a structural deficit in 2016. and at one point the opposition was complaining he wasn't spending enough.Oh. the devil made me do it. He didn't create the structural deficit but if you want to take issue with the way he handled it, that's fine.He did create the structural deficit and for entirely ideological reasons. As an ideologically blind believer in small government, he wanted to hamstring future governments to hamstring them from have a government that does things. So, he cuts revenue, knowing that some future government will be forced into a choice of cutting program spending or raising taxes. He tried to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, the Liberals want to just borrow more money and spend it. Two different approaches to deal with the same problem.Patent nonsense. If Harper wants to constrain his own spending that's one thing. He's created a poison pill to constrain a future government. This type of dishonest governance needs to be called out for what it is. It's not that governments run deficits from time to time that bothers me, it's that they plan on never paying it back.After Chretien/Martin ran their surpluses, I would have been happier if they had put the surplus towards the debt and split the interest savings between new program spending and lower taxes. We would probably be $100 billion less in debt if that had happened. But instead, the Liberals spent the surplus and Harper created a structural deficit. And nobody complained because they were too greedy for tax savings. So blaming this mess on Trudeau is ridiculous. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Wilber Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 So blaming this mess on Trudeau is ridiculous.I'm not blaming Trudeau for anything, he hasn't done it yet. I told you what I don't agree with. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
CITIZEN_2015 Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Political manipulations and deception and lies were the main tools for Harper regime. The manner in which they supposedly balanced the budget (the foundation of their campaign) was no different. Lies and manipulations. They also rammed through unpopular harmful bills like C-51 and C-36 (harmful to our democratic values or safety of our citizens) by political manipulations and lies. I am glad the regime is gone to the trash bag of the history. It would take years or even decades for the new popular government to reverse the damages caused by Harper so called conservative party. Quote
Argus Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 Not one word condemning the Tories' concocted figures. Oh no, it's all about Trudeau and the Ontario Liberals It's rather sad to see a hardened partisan willfully ignore his party's sins, and blame a guy who has been in office one week. It's so sad to see a hardened partisan lying about other people's positions. But then again, I guess that makes it easier to debate when you suck at debating. I haven't blamed Trudeau for a single thing. What I've done is suggest he will use this as a pretext for continuing deficits. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.