So Much For Tory Fiscal Stewardship

[eyeball]

Because it isn't criminal, it is political and they aren't manipulating the books, they are just making questionable estimates which you can choose to believe, or not.

Like I asked, shouldn't this behaviour be considered criminal? It clearly causes problems - it's almost like vandalism given the acrimony, divisiveness and bad will it fosters in the public. It seems reprehensible enough to me.

[eyeball]

Remember that Parliament makes the law and they aren't going to make one that will put them in jail if a budget is wrong.

For what it is worth (questionable) the Conservatives did pass a balanced budget act which the Liberals have said they will scrap.

What scribblet accused the Liberals of in post 170 sounds a lot more like embezzlement than the simple accounting mistake Accountability Now makes it out to be or the the political lie you make it out to be.

That it's all perfectly legal is just a little appalling.

Edited November 21, 2015 by eyeball

[Accountability Now]

It seems pretty dodgy to me.

We give them the consent to do this when we elect them. The issue arises when they do something criminal like actual theft

[Accountability Now]

What scribblet accused the Liberals of in post 170 sounds a lot more like embezzlement than the simple accounting mistake Accountability Now makes it out to be or the the political lie you make it out to be.

That it's all perfectly legal is just a little appalling.

Face palm! It's forecasting. Estimating. Educated guessing. What don't you get about this?

[Accountability Now]

That it's all perfectly legal is just a little appalling.

Do you accuse your financial planner of "criminal conversion" when your stocks don't amount to what he said they would?

[eyeball]

Face palm! It's forecasting. Estimating. Educated guessing. What don't you get about this?

That it might be deliberately misleading. I get it that you have no problem with that.

[Wilber]

That it might be deliberately misleading. I get it that you have no problem with that.

It might be, but prove it.

[eyeball]

Do you accuse your financial planner of "criminal conversion" when your stocks don't amount to what he said they would?

If he knew they were going to amount to more and told me otherwise I'd probably consult a lawyer.

[eyeball]

It might be, but prove it.

Ah there's the rub.

Accountability Now...sounds like a bumper-sticker for a movement of losers or something.

[Accountability Now]

That it might be deliberately misleading. I get it that you have no problem with that.

But it's not misleading....its guessing based on many factors. Sometimes they expect a positive factor that turns negative and vice versa. Sometimes they cancel each other.

Until you prove they are deliberately skewing the numbers then you got nothing

[eyeball]

But it's not misleading....its guessing based on many factors. Sometimes they expect a positive factor that turns negative and vice versa. Sometimes they cancel each other.

Until you prove they are deliberately skewing the numbers then you got nothing

How can you say it's not misleading without adequate accounting oversight? You've got no more than I do.

[Accountability Now]

How can you say it's not misleading without adequate accounting oversight? You've got no more than I do.

Actually I do. The article posted shows how the forecasts were made and conditions changed. Take the time to read the full budget in order to see the details involved. It's not a simple equation

All you have is conspiracy theories

Edited November 21, 2015 by Accountability Now

[eyeball]

No. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of accusations of apparent conspiring to cook our books and why the measures we have to prove or dismiss them are so lacking.

[Accountability Now]

I have followed budgets and to the best of my memory it has never been a forecast more than 5 billion dollars to the upside. The fact that it happened in an election year makes it a lot worse. Paul Martin did have a few multi-billion dollar miscalculations on the downside resulting in lower deficits or higher surpluses but I don't remember a 5+ billion forecast on the upside overestimating tax revenues (maybe before I start counting like in the 80's?). I don't think there is any citation keeping track of what was forecast and what we ended up with anywhere.

So let me see if I understand you. You are only concerned that there was an increase of 5 billion in revenue to what is projected (aka upside) in this financial year which happened to be before the election. And....you claim that this was politically driven and that to the best of your memory, it has never happened before. Well....lucky for us Finance Canada keeps track of all this information and allows anyone to access it back to at least 1999 (that's as far as I got). In that time frame I found the following years that had a revenue upside close to or over 5 billion:

2013-14 - 7.7 B

2009-10 - 4.7B

2003-04 - 5.1B

2000-01 - 4.9B

1999-00 - 5.8B

You will notice that three of the five listed are during the Liberal mandate. Perhaps those ones escaped your convenient memory? The fact is that numbers are budgeted which means they are projected/guessed based on information we have a year out. Anyone that expected the variance to be zero is not realistic.

For anyone else that cares....over the past 10 years or so, there were multiple years where the projected budget had a variance from the actual budget by several billion dollars. Again, this information is laid out in the Annual Financial Statements on Finance Canada's website. In these reports they break out the various types of revenues and expenses both citing their budgeted amount and the actual amounts. No conspiracies here folks, just people trying to run a large business known as Canada.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/purl/afr-eng.asp

[Accountability Now]

No. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of accusations of apparent conspiring to cook our books and why the measures we have to prove or dismiss them are so lacking.

As I posted above, all the info you want in terms of what was budgeted versus actual numbers can be found in the Finance Canada page. Of course, don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracies.

[CITIZEN_2015]

. In that time frame I found the following years that had a revenue upside close to or over 5 billion:

2013-14 - 7.7 B

2009-10 - 4.7B

2003-04 - 5.1B

2000-01 - 4.9B

1999-00 - 5.8B

This is revenue UPSIDE which means less deficits or higher surpluses and I also said it happened a few times during Paul Martin finance minister years. Please read my post before responding I said to the best of my memory a 5.2 billion less revenue causing higher deficits as it happened with conservative government in an election year!!!!!

[Topaz]

don't know if this will make the debate better or worse but here's a graph showing Canada debt was made worse since the Alliance/Tories took over.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

[CITIZEN_2015]

don't know if this will make the debate better or worse but here's a graph showing Canada debt was made worse since the Alliance/Tories took over.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

Yes I called them wolves in sheep's clothing.

Interesting link. They claimed Canada is fiscally best in G8 but to my surprise I see that Germany and Russia are better fiscally!!!!! Also surprise to see some countries like Mexico and Turkey better too!!!!

[Accountability Now]

This is revenue UPSIDE which means less deficits or higher surpluses and I also said it happened a few times during Paul Martin finance minister years. Please read my post before responding I said to the best of my memory a 5.2 billion less revenue causing higher deficits as it happened with conservative government in an election year!!!!!

Read what you said:

I have followed budgets and to the best of my memory it has never been a forecast more than 5 billion dollars to the upside.

So I have shown you examples that you admit (as shown in red) that its revenue upside.

The problem I'm having with your jibberish is what do you mean by upside as you keep mixing them up.

With all this said, lets look at your most recent post:

Please read my post before responding I said to the best of my memory a 5.2 billion less revenue causing higher deficits as it happened with conservative government in an election year!!!!!

If you were to read the report, you would see that its NOT 5.2 billion less REVENUE...its 5.2 billion difference in surplus/deficit compared to what was projected in April. The actual revenue is down by 2.9B and the COSTS are up by 2.3B.

In 2011-12 the final costs had a loss of 2.8B in revenue but the Conservatives also cut costs by 1.4B to offset this. The difference here is that the Liberals are seeing the same decrease in revenue but are doing nothing about cutting costs. Keep in mind, this report doesn't even include the costs for their other election promises.

In 2007-2008, the Conservatives saw another loss of 2.1B in revenue and again cut costs by 1.5B in order to keep the overall change in the profit (i.e. surplus) to -0.6B which brought it from a projected 10.2B surplus down to a 9.6B. To me, that is the sign of a prudent managing government that manages the costs based on incoming revenues.

One other important point/question....why is it ok to see revenue increases of 5B but not revenue decreases? Again, do you have a grasp on the factors affecting these numbers? The global economy has been a roller coaster for the last 10 years with oil prices all over the place. If you are ok with the upside of oil/revenue prices, then you have to accept the downside. Unless of course if it doesn't fit your narrative to the partisan politics.

[CITIZEN_2015]

I think we are mixed up here between upside-downside. Upside with revenue is same as downside n deficit and that is good but downside in revenue and upside in deficit is bad. Revenue increase is positive but revenue decrease is bad because it results in more deficit. Please show me any past year that a revenue downside of 5.2 billion dollar caused a deficit in which a surplus was promised except this ELECTION year by former conservative government. I do accept the global economy was volatile (oil in particular) but that was so before April 2015 when budget was presented. And what do you say about the sell of GM sales to help to temporarily (artificially) help to balance the budget for one year. that too was a coincident to be happening in an election year?

[eyeball]

As I posted above, all the info you want in terms of what was budgeted versus actual numbers can be found in the Finance Canada page. Of course, don't let facts get in the way of your conspiracies.

You mean scribblet and Triple M's conspiracies. I'd like to be able to trust the government too but not as blindly as some are all to willing to do. I still see lots and lots of room for more rigorous institutions of accountability.

People are fond of putting all this in individual terms they can relate to - anyone who's tried to get a loan application knows how closely lenders scrutinize their ability to pay and how much latitude they have to scrutinize that. They're also usually a lot less charitable when things go sideways and have a lot more latitude to do something about it when it does.

[Accountability Now]

Please show me any past year that a revenue downside of 5.2 billion dollar caused a deficit in which a surplus was promised except this ELECTION year by former conservative government.

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.

[CITIZEN_2015]

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.

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?

[Accountability Now]

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?

So are you moving on to the next talking points then now that your blunder with the 5.2B has been addressed? Just want to make sure you're up to speed before we move on

[CITIZEN_2015]

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.

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.

Edited November 21, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015