Kevin O'Leary & Pierre-Karl Péladeau

Army Guy · January 1, 2017

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 0:50 PM, Smallc said:

Again, that's revisionist. With $20B in new spending we're running a deficit of almost $30B, so it wasn't cleared. It's also false to say that Canada's deficit is growing. It's not. It will be fine to shrink again going forward.

Canada's national Debt has grown in size , todays debt stands at 612 bil dollars in 2015...how is not growing when the numbers keep getting bigger.

Smallc · January 1, 2017

I said the deficit isn't growing. The debt growth may or may not br consequential (right now it's not).

Bryan · January 1, 2017

On December 31, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Smallc said:

Again, that's revisionist. With $20B in new spending we're running a deficit of almost $30B, so it wasn't cleared.

There was a $7.5 Billion surplus when Trudeau took office. The revisionism took place when Trudeau retroactively added new spending to a previous budget.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

3 hours ago, Bryan said:

There was a $7.5 Billion surplus when Trudeau took office. The revisionism took place when Trudeau retroactively added new spending to a previous budget.

No, we did not. Harper and Oilver lied and lied and lied about a fake deficit. They didn't come clean and tell Canadians that they cooked the books big time by selling the furniture at fire sale prices to create a falsified surplus for a single quarter, and delayed introduction of the Child care programs they created to a later quarter even though they would include credit for the previous 2 quarters so they could hide the multi-billion dollar hit that caused when the middle class began to subsidize billionaires. That is called a lie, a big bold face lie. Trudeau inherited a large deficit from the Conservatives, and anyone who looks at the books and not the lying election propaganda from Harper knows that.

Bryan · January 2, 2017

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Trudeau inherited a large deficit from the Conservatives, and anyone who looks at the books and not the lying election propaganda from Harper knows that.

The books have been looked at, and have been confirmed several times over: there was a $7.5 Billion surplus, even while Trudeau and Morneau were claiming they were already in deficit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-had-75-billion-surplus-heading-into-final-month-of-fiscal-year/article29797547/

Quote

It may be the first surplus a finance minister doesn’t want to talk about.

Finance Canada reported Friday that the federal government had a $7.5-billion surplus with just one month left in the fiscal year.

Smallc · January 2, 2017

You realize that the year has 12 months, not 11, right? And that the last month counts? A lot of money goes out of the federal treasury in March.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

23 minutes ago, Bryan said:

The books have been looked at, and have been confirmed several times over:

Sorry but the books were finalized in October, not April; that the way is always has been (at least in the past 50+ years). The deficit from the Oliver budget ended up being $987 million. Additionally there was a comprehensive loss of $2.669 billion, due mainly to the reclassification in the current year from the sale of General Motors common shares in April 2015. That is a net debt increase of $3.656 billion. We will know the final results from Morneau's first budget next October.

Edited January 2, 2017 by ?Impact

Bryan · January 2, 2017

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

The deficit from the Oliver budget ended up being $987 million.

Only because Morneau retroactively applied almost $9 Billion in new spending to the previous budget. The Conservatives left a $7.5 billion surplus, period.

The previous government can't be held accountable for what the next one spends.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

2 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Only because Morneau retroactively applied almost $9 Billion in new spending to the previous budget. The Conservatives left a $7.5 billion surplus, period.

On baloney?

Bryan · January 2, 2017

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

On baloney?

An actual surplus confirmed by the finance department.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

Just now, Bryan said:

An actual surplus confirmed by the finance department.

As I stated, the finance department confirmed the exact numbers in October like they always do. It resulted in new debt of $3.656 billion. Everything before is ouija board numbers and don't mean anything. Remember when Flaherty said one May what his deficit would be, and when the numbers came out in October they were $8 billion higher. There was no surplus in Oliver's budget. We will see in 10 months how well Morneau does.

Bryan · January 2, 2017

Ottawa's finances were in an actual, real $7.5 Billion surplus before Morneau started his spending spree. Finance Canada confirmed, more than once, that he and Trudeau were lying when they claimed they were left a deficit.

Smallc · January 2, 2017

4 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Ottawa's finances were in an actual, real $7.5 Billion surplus before Morneau started his spending spree.

That is absolutely unverifiable without seeing the actual month by month breakdown of the finalized figures.

Bryan · January 2, 2017

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That is absolutely unverifiable without seeing the actual month by month breakdown of the finalized figures.

Finance Department has the numbers, and DID verify them.

Smallc · January 2, 2017

Just now, Bryan said:

Finance Department has the numbers, and DID verify them.

The numbers you are quoting are not the finalized numbers. As impact has pointed out to you, the figures are not finalized until October.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Finance Department has the numbers, and DID verify them.

You are quoting a globe and mail article based on the February Fiscal Monitor, yet you totally ignore the March Fiscal Monitor that would cover the last month of the year. If you want to keep getting stuck in old predictions, then at least be complete and not just throw a dart at the board. Here is the summary of the March Fiscal Monitor: There was a budgetary deficit of $9.4 billion in March 2016, compared to a budgetary deficit of $3.0 billion reported for March 2015. Revenues decreased by $5.0 billion, reflecting significant decreases in income tax revenues and other revenues, partially offset by an increase in excise taxes and duties. Program expenses increased by $1.3 billion, or 4.4 per cent, mainly reflecting an increase in direct program expenses. Public debt charges increased by $0.1 billion, or 7.0 per cent, reflecting higher consumer price adjustments on Real Return Bonds.

In other words Oliver's gift to billionaires dropped tax revenue, and his child care fiasco (also benefiting billionaires) increase costs. I suggest however now that October is past you stick to the real numbers as I listed above - new debt for the year of $3.656 billion.

blueblood · January 2, 2017

25 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You are quoting a globe and mail article based on the February Fiscal Monitor, yet you totally ignore the March Fiscal Monitor that would cover the last month of the year. If you want to keep getting stuck in old predictions, then at least be complete and not just throw a dart at the board. Here is the summary of the March Fiscal Monitor: There was a budgetary deficit of $9.4 billion in March 2016, compared to a budgetary deficit of $3.0 billion reported for March 2015. Revenues decreased by $5.0 billion, reflecting significant decreases in income tax revenues and other revenues, partially offset by an increase in excise taxes and duties. Program expenses increased by $1.3 billion, or 4.4 per cent, mainly reflecting an increase in direct program expenses. Public debt charges increased by $0.1 billion, or 7.0 per cent, reflecting higher consumer price adjustments on Real Return Bonds.

In other words Oliver's gift to billionaires dropped tax revenue, and his child care fiasco (also benefiting billionaires) increase costs. I suggest however now that October is past you stick to the real numbers as I listed above - new debt for the year of $3.656 billion.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-budget

they are quoting the department of finance. In 2015 Canada had a surplus of 0.1 percent of GDP. A surplus is a surplus is a surplus. As for selling off the furniture, the less the government has its hands in the better. In fact there is more furniture to sell.

?Impact · January 2, 2017

5 minutes ago, blueblood said:

As for selling off the furniture, the less the government has its hands in the better.

I said long ago that Harper & McGuinty should not have wasted money on GM stock, but selling it at a loss was just insult to injury.

blueblood · January 2, 2017

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I said long ago that Harper & McGuinty should not have wasted money on GM stock, but selling it at a loss was just insult to injury.

Given the current share price of fm the Canadian govt did nicely!

?Impact · January 2, 2017

1 minute ago, blueblood said:

Given the current share price of fm the Canadian govt did nicely!

If you consider losing several billion dollars doing nicely, then I have some great investments for you.

blueblood · January 2, 2017

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If you consider losing several billion dollars doing nicely, then I have some great investments for you.

It would be less of a loss than if Trudeau sold them tomorrow!!

better the guys at gm get the billions than those kooks overseas that Trudeau is trying to buy the UN Security Council seat with!

August1991 · January 3, 2017

On 12/31/2016 at 11:38 AM, blueblood said:

That depends on the economy. Harper won a majority without Quebec and O'Leary could very well do the same. If the economy keeps being sluggish the NDp will gain votes on the left and the Tories will come up the middle.

Make no mistake: Harper could work a crowd in Quebec.

Canada has its own Electoral College: To become a federal PM, mere votes are not enough: a winner needs support from two linguistic communities.

=====

Moreover, French and English speaking Canadians know that Federal Canada is not a business. Moreover, we know that snowbanks surround us - only crazy/stupid immigrants come here. We're like Finland.

America faces a problem of illegal immigration.

Canada (French Canada in particular) does not.

Edited January 3, 2017 by August1991

?Impact · January 3, 2017

2 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Make no mistake: Harper could work a crowd in Quebec.

When the crowd is vetted, their Facebook pages creeped, and they must swear allegiance on a stack of the Crusader newspapers, it is easy to work them.

August1991 · January 3, 2017

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

When the crowd is vetted, their Facebook pages creeped, and they must swear allegiance on a stack of the Crusader newspapers, it is easy to work them.

Vetted? I was in a car dealership in Montreal (PAT, East) and overheard a buyer talking to a seller talking about meeting Harper near Victoriaville.

====

Make no mistake: I am not arguing that Stephen Harper was popular in Quebec.

I am simply arguing that in a civilized society, leaders must have support from all people, many groups.

PS. I think it was 2008. The seller showed the buyer a photo of her (seller) with Harper. Go figure.

Edited January 3, 2017 by August1991

Bryan · January 3, 2017

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

When the crowd is vetted...

Not in Quebec, but I've met Harper more than once, and I was certainly never "vetted". The stories about controlled crowds were complete fabrications -- ANYONE who wanted to could come.