Conservative Surplus Nothing but Hot Air

[Smallc]

The federal government has been saying it wants to expedite $13.1 billion in existing national infrastructure cash allocated in 2014-15 by the previous Conservative government, but never spent.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/03/time-for-alberta-to-get-federal-payback-for-heavy-lifting-says-notley.html

I suppose it's really easy to run a surplus when you don't spend or even plan to spend any of the money that you allocate. Looking back at things like this, it's harder and harder to say that I was right to support the party.

[Shady]

Justin inherited a surplus, and plans to turn it into a big deficit. Regardless, yes, when the government spends less money, it's easier to achieve surpluses and/or balanced budgets. It's not rocket science.

[On Guard for Thee]

Justin inherited a surplus, and plans to turn it into a big deficit. Regardless, yes, when the government spends less money, it's easier to achieve surpluses and/or balanced budgets. It's not rocket science.

In this case, the "rocket science" you speak of is called robbing Peter to pay Paul. But they got caught at it. Can't see how they thought they wouldn't.

[Keepitsimple]

The federal government has been saying it wants to expedite $13.1 billion in existing national infrastructure cash allocated in 2014-15 by the previous Conservative government, but never spent.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/03/time-for-alberta-to-get-federal-payback-for-heavy-lifting-says-notley.html

I suppose it's really easy to run a surplus when you don't spend or even plan to spend any of the money that you allocate. Looking back at things like this, it's harder and harder to say that I was right to support the party.

Oh come on - we're talking about the Star here. They could have used the term "not yet spent" which would have been far more accurate. The money is allocated - it's there - all part of a huge but confusing infrastructure commitment over 10 years. You're being disingenous by suggesting a delay in infrastructure spending makes it easy to run a surplus.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

In this case, the "rocket science" you speak of is called robbing Peter to pay Paul. But they got caught at it. Can't see how they thought they wouldn't.

Not at all. Nobody was so-called robbed. Cutting spending is usually a good way of achieving balanced budgets. I applaud them for being fiscally conservative and responsible. However, Justin has inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That's a fact.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all. Nobody was so-called robbed. Cutting spending is usually a good way of achieving balanced budgets. I applaud them for being fiscally conservative and responsible. However, Justin has inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That's a fact.

Not at all. Nobody was so-called robbed. Cutting spending is usually a good way of achieving balanced budgets. I applaud them for being fiscally conservative and responsible. However, Justin has inherited a surplus and turned it into a deficit. That's a fact.

No, the fact is when things are falling apart and you rob back the money you had in your budget to fix those things, simply for political expediency, it just passes the problem on down the line. If Trudeau does end up in deficit as he stated he would to begin with, a part of that will be to fix the things his predecessor neglected in an attempt to look fiscally competent.

[waldo]

I suppose it's really easy to run a surplus when you don't spend or even plan to spend any of the money that you allocate. Looking back at things like this, it's harder and harder to say that I was right to support the party.

but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus, one reflecting upon the Harper Conservatives “careful economic stewardship”... coming after the 6 consecutive deficits (rarely, if ever, acknowledged by Harper)!

.

[Guest]

Harper is a smart guy and he knows that the fastest way to improve your current situation is to lie. Why not earn points by advertising spending on various portfolios and then just not spend it and earn points for balancing the budget? It's like watering down the whiskey, dishonest, but effective, as long as the sheeple aren't very bright or interested.

[Keepitsimple]

but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus, one reflecting upon the Harper Conservatives “careful economic stewardship”... coming after the 6 consecutive deficits (rarely, if ever, acknowledged by Harper)!

.

Do you have a cite to support your contention that allocated, unspent Infrastructure money was returned to general revenues? That's what the topic is referring to.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

Is it harpers fault or the PS? Is the PS incompetent, that they could not get it out the door. It seems once a policy or project was given to the PS ,they screwed it up. It is the unelected people(ps) that actually do the work is it not? So if something does not happen or is done wrong, that would be the public service would it not? Or was there a little sabotage going on to make the gov look bad?

[Smallc]

Is it harpers fault or the PS? Is the PS incompetent, that they could not get it out the door.

Probably half the people working in the PS were hired under a Conservative government (the Harper one), so....

[waldo]

Do you have a cite to support your contention that allocated, unspent Infrastructure money was returned to general revenues? That's what the topic is referring to.

where does allocated unspent money go?

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Is it harpers fault or the PS? Is the PS incompetent, that they could not get it out the door. It seems once a policy or project was given to the PS ,they screwed it up. It is the unelected people(ps) that actually do the work is it not? So if something does not happen or is done wrong, that would be the public service would it not? Or was there a little sabotage going on to make the gov look bad?

Does the PS set the rates paid toward EI?

[capricorn]

Probably half the people working in the PS were hired under a Conservative government (the Harper one), so....

Not even close. In 2006 there were 249,932 public servants and in 2015 there were 257,034. Seems to me that's far from appointing 50% of the total ps workforce in under 10 years, even when retirements and other separations are factored in.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/modernizing-modernisation/stats/ssen-ane-eng.asp

[Smallc]

Not even close. In 2006 there were 249,932 public servants and in 2015 there were 257,034. Seems to me that's far from appointing 50% of the total ps workforce in under 10 years, even when retirements and other separations are factored in.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/modernizing-modernisation/stats/ssen-ane-eng.asp

You don't think anyone retired? Quit? Was fired?

[Keepitsimple]

where does allocated unspent money go?

.

You implied that Federal unspent Infrastructure money goes back into general revenues, yes? I asked for a cite. You made the contention - please prove it. I'll settle for a statement that you "mis-spoke" - without paragraphs of Waldo-babble clouding the issue.hey?

but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus

Edited February 4, 2016 by Keepitsimple

[DogOnPorch]

Trudeau seems like a fellow that just learned he has a huge line of credit as yet untouched.

Just my opinion...

[waldo]

You implied that Federal unspent Infrastructure money goes back into general revenues, yes? I asked for a cite. You made the contention - please prove it. I'll settle for a statement that you "mis-spoke" - without paragraphs of Waldo-babble clouding the issue.hey?

but of course! That was the grand Harper charade... cut spending throughout with allocated funding not spent returned to the federal treasury as lapsed funding. All in order to be able to spring forward with a grand 2015 election campaign announcement of a 2014-15 budget surplus

no - I never said a thing about Infrastructure monies proper... that is your inference. I spoke generally, and asked you the question accordingly. Words matter, Simple! As I said, I asked you a general focused question; again: where does allocated unspent money go? Not sure why you're so hesitant to answer that. Perhaps if you answer that question, it might add credibility to your want to extend this to 'infrastructure monies'... or, perhaps you may wish to retreat and regroup. Your choice.

.

[cybercoma]

The federal government has been saying it wants to expedite $13.1 billion in existing national infrastructure cash allocated in 2014-15 by the previous Conservative government, but never spent.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/03/time-for-alberta-to-get-federal-payback-for-heavy-lifting-says-notley.html

I suppose it's really easy to run a surplus when you don't spend or even plan to spend any of the money that you allocate. Looking back at things like this, it's harder and harder to say that I was right to support the party.

People had been saying this for a long time, namely that the federal government was reporting surpluses by not spending money that was allocated. What's worse and we may never get answers to this one, is how they changed the accounting principles. I talked about this before in a thread a few years ago. That's where the real s*** show happened.

[cybercoma]

Not at all. Nobody was so-called robbed.

Except for the provinces when it comes to the amount of infrastructure funding promised then not spent in order to create a faux surplus. The provinces would have made decisions based on those initial numbers. Edited February 4, 2016 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

no - I never said a thing about Infrastructure monies proper... that is your inference. I spoke generally, and asked you the question accordingly. Words matter, Simple! As I said, I asked you a general focused question; again: where does allocated unspent money go? Not sure why you're so hesitant to answer that. Perhaps if you answer that question, it might add credibility to your want to extend this to 'infrastructure monies'... or, perhaps you may wish to retreat and regroup. Your choice.

.

No need for further comment now that you've agreed that unspent infrastructure funds are not returned to general revenues.

[capricorn]

You don't think anyone retired? Quit? Was fired?

Of course. But claiming that 50% of the total public service workforce (that would be over 124,966 employees) were appointed under the Harper Conservatives is over the top. In fact, Harper reduced the size of the public service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Hiring

[waldo]

No need for further comment now that you've agreed that unspent infrastructure funds are not returned to general revenues.

that's quite the convoluted 'spin, flip, double-twist' maneuver you're playing there! You said I implied... you drew the inference. I asked you a general focused question - you refuse to answer. Instead, you've applied your deflection maneuver, followed up by your attempt to shut discussion down by falsely attributing agreement to me. It's not a hard question - not sure why you refuse to answer it.

.

[Smallc]

Of course. But claiming that 50% of the total public service workforce (that would be over 124,966 employees) were appointed under the Harper Conservatives is over the top. In fact, Harper reduced the size of the public service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Service_of_Canada#Hiring

Actually, since there's no number for 2005 or 2006 there, it appears like he left it pretty much where it started.

It's likely that a significant portion of the people working in government (I'll stand by my 50% estimate) were hired by the Conservatives.

[Keepitsimple]

Actually, since there's no number for 2005 or 2006 there, it appears like he left it pretty much where it started.

It's likely that a significant portion of the people working in government (I'll stand by my 50% estimate) were hired by the Conservatives.

More accurately, they were hired by the Hiring Managers within the presumably non-partisan bureaucracy.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Keepitsimple