Government Surplus

[Canuck E Stan]

I'll tell you what THELIBERAL,you tell me what the debt is. Seems you only have the ability to ask questions that you seem to know the answers to, in all your posts. So how about you do some research and start giving us here on the forum some answers and some hard facts to all your own questions.

-Canuck E. Stan

Here's some other questions you might ask yourself:

Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

If you're not supposed to drink and drive, then why do bars have parking lots?

If you got into a taxi and he started driving backwards, would the taxi driver end up owing you money?

If pro is the opposite of con, then is progress the opposite of congress?

If it's Zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be Twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

Why do scientists call it "re"search when looking for something new?

Why is it called a building when it is already built?

Why is hamburger called hamburger, when it is made out of beef not ham?

If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?

Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

Why do ballet dancers always dance on their toes? Wouldn't it be easier to just hire taller dancers?

Why is it when someone eats something that tastes bad they say "Aw, this tastes gross!" and turn to you and say "Try it!" Why would I want to try it, if they already told me what it tastes like?

How do you know when invisible ink pens run out of ink?

If you drop a chameleon in water, will it turn clear?

Why do they call it a Leap Year if you ADD another day rather than subtracting one?

Is it possible to be totally partial?

What do you do when you see an endangered animal that eats only endangered plants?

[SirSpanky]

RE::These surpluses are not ideal but much preferrable to the alternative where politicians start to think that deficits are acceptable again.

You got that right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, what would be ideal is the government trying to give accurate estimates of revenue.

[Riverwind]

No, what would be ideal is the government trying to give accurate estimates of revenue.

Forcasting is an art not a science. If you are willing to live with deficits when the unexpected happens then you can come up with estimates that will be close if the expected occurs. If you don't want a deficit under any condition then your estimates will produce a surplus under normal circumstances.

Given a choice between the two I think surpluses are better than deficits.

[Leader Circle]

I'll tell you what THELIBERAL,you tell me what the debt is. Seems you only have the ability to ask questions that you seem to know the answers to, in all your posts. So how about you do some research and start giving us here on the forum some answers and some hard facts to all your own questions.

-Canuck E. Stan

If it's Zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be Twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know this one. It'll be -8.8 C. My reasoning.... 32 F = 0 C, so half of 32 is 16.... 16 F= -8.8 C. LOL! I know this is a philosophical question, but I think my theory holds some weight!

[Riverwind]

I know this one. It'll be -8.8 C. My reasoning.... 32 F = 0 C, so half of 32 is 16.... 16 F= -8.8 C.  LOL!  I know this is a philosophical question, but I think my theory holds some weight!

0C = 273K; divide by 2 = 136.5K = -136.5C - damn that sounds cold

[YellowDuck]

Hi all. New poster.

What are current federal expeditures? Something like $200 billion? So an $8 billion surplus amounts to 4% of the budget. If you ask me, that is cutting it pretty close. Surely revenues can fluctuate by more than that if you get your economic predictions a little off. So I'd say Goodale (and Martin before him) should be congratulated for so consistently getting the revenue predictions so close to the actual expenditures, without ever screwing up and dipping into a deficit situation. Just good fiscal management if you ask me.

Sure, the opposition parties are screaming and wailing about the surpluses, but just imagine the ruckus they would make if it was in the other direction!

We can argue about expediture levels and priorities, but in terms of balancing revenues with expenditures, this is EXACTLY how the country is SUPPOSED to be run. To argue otherwise is very disingenuous.

[Shady]

this is EXACTLY how the country is SUPPOSED to be run. To argue otherwise is very disingenuous

With all due respect, why are you trying to quash opposing opinions in the guise of disingenuousness? Your opinion is perfectly legitimate, but so is mine. I happen to think that our country is over-taxed. The rather large continuous surpluses is proof. Yes, a surplus is better then a deficit. But large continuous government surpluses are not ideal. That results in billions of dollars per year sucked out of the economy by a non-producing entity.

[mirror]

Hopefully these large surpluses will go towards paying down our national debt which will untimately benefit all Canadians, as opposed to tax cuts which unfairly penalize the poor and the middle classes.

[Argus]

Hi all.  New poster.

What are current federal expeditures?  Something like $200 billion?  So an $8 billion surplus amounts to 4% of the budget.  If you ask me, that is cutting it pretty close.  Surely revenues can fluctuate by more than that if you get your economic predictions a little off.  So I'd say Goodale (and Martin before him) should be congratulated for so consistently getting the revenue predictions so close to the actual expenditures, without ever screwing up and dipping into a deficit situation.  Just good fiscal management if you ask me.

Mmm, the kind of "sound fiscal management" which would have landed Martin in prison had he tried to play the same sorts of accounting games he does with the federal budget. He's been warned about his accounting games by the AG, and there was eve, if I recall correctly, a threat that she wouldn't even sign off on books as the federal auditor because of his unique accounting methods.

Sure, the opposition parties are screaming and wailing about the surpluses, but just imagine the ruckus they would make if it was in the other direction!

The opposition paties are screaming about surpluses? I think the Tories are screaming about govenrment waste and demanding a tax cut. Dunno what the ndp is screaming about as I don't pay them much attention. Probably that taxes are too low.

We can argue about expediture levels and priorities, but in terms of balancing revenues with expenditures, this is EXACTLY how the country is SUPPOSED to be run.  To argue otherwise is very disingenuous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The books are supposed to be balanced, but ideally this would be by ensuring that you spend only as much as you are required to spend, not increasing taxes to pay for useless programs and waste. It would also be better to do it honestly rather than by cooking the books.

[err]

They always underestimate the surplus, so when the budget comes around, they have a surprise bigger surplus. They always say theat they are almost out of money in the piggybank, but they are clearly not. That's whats wrong with the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The real reason they always underestimate the surplus should be obvious... "We don't have enough money for health care", "there's not enough money for post-secondary education, so we'll have to raise tuition...".. They aren't going to finish sentences like these with a line like "even though we've got billions of dollars in surplus..."...

They don't want to have to bend to social pressure... They want the public to think "Tough times require drastic actions"... like the closing down of how many hospitals a few years back.... the laying off of how many thousands of nurses a few years back...(12,000 in Quebec alone).... They don't want to say... we have money now, so we're going to give back what we took away...

[err]

The GST is a punishing, job-killing, economic-growth slowing tax.  It's unbelievably bad and unnecessary.  It should be eliminated, and personal income taxes should be reduced.

Hardly. Taxes on income are the job-killers since they reduce the incentive to work and save. Taxes on consumption will reduce consumption, however, they encourage saving which increases investment. The net result is the economy is better off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GST is a horrible regressive tax. It was brought in by Mulroney so that they could reduce income taxes... Who benefits most from reduced income taxes.... The wealthy...

Who does the sales tax hurt the most... well, a guy living cheque to cheque pays GST on pretty much 100% of his income, whereas the richer guy who can bank some of his cheque... pays GST on only a portion of his income...

The lower income bracked loses in both counts.... The savings that the wealthier get on their income tax can easily offset their additonal costs in value-added taxes, so the rich don't lose with Mulroney's tax shuffle....

[err]

Sure, the opposition parties are screaming and wailing about the surpluses, but just imagine the ruckus they would make if it was in the other direction!

The opposition paties are screaming about surpluses? I think the Tories are screaming about govenrment waste and demanding a tax cut. Dunno what the ndp is screaming about as I don't pay them much attention. Probably that taxes are too low.

Maybe you should listen to what the NDP is screaming about... Then you and you likes might have some credibility when you put them down.

The books are supposed to be balanced, but ideally this would be by ensuring that you spend only as much as you are required to spend, not increasing taxes to pay for useless programs and waste. It would also be better to do it honestly rather than by cooking the books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And which programs are "useless and waste"... ones for people who aren't in your situation....

[Toro]

GST is a horrible regressive tax.  It was brought in by Mulroney so that they could reduce income taxes...  Who benefits most from reduced income taxes.... The wealthy...

err

I believe the GST replaced a manufacturers excise tax. It did not replace an income tax.

[Toro]

Hopefully these large surpluses will go towards paying down our national debt which will untimately benefit all Canadians, as opposed to tax cuts which unfairly penalize the poor and the middle classes.

mirror

Though I think your idea of paying down the debt is a good idea, tax cuts to the middle and lower classes do not penalize the poor since it lets them keep more of that money. Its progressive if the taxes that the poor and middle class were paying were used for an unnecessary government expenditure.

[Guest eureka]

Your qualification makes your assertion a little meaningless don't you think, Toro. If the taxes were used for unnecessary government expenditure, then I would suggest that it is not tax cuts of any kind that would be an answer. All government expenditures are necessary unless the electorate in an election decides they will no longer be required.

I wonder if the term "government surplus" is not inappropriate for the considerations that come out of the discussions. I don't think government can be said to have a surplus if the "surplus" is used for some purpose as in paying down debt. It is not as though the money were stuck in a savings account in a bank.

Only when there is no debt and all programmes are fully funded could there actually be a surplus. Of course, that opens up all kinds of possibilities for political disagreement.

[shoop]

Your qualification makes your assertion a little meaningless don't you think, Toro. If the taxes were used for unnecessary government expenditure, then I would suggest that it is not tax cuts of any kind that would be an answer. All government expenditures are necessary unless the electorate in an election decides they will no longer be required.

I wonder if the term "government surplus" is not inappropriate for the considerations that come out of the discussions. I don't think government can be said to have a surplus if the "surplus" is used for some purpose as in paying down debt. It is not as though the money were stuck in a savings account in a bank.

Only when there is no debt and all programmes are fully funded could there actually be a surplus. Of course, that opens up all kinds of possibilities for political disagreement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your assertion would make sense if parties completely outlined all of their spending plans while in office in the election. History has shown this to never be the case.

Why try and change the term surplus? A surplus is, by definition, when the governmen takes in more in a year then it spends on everything except debt repayment.

[Argus]

Maybe you should listen to what the NDP is screaming about...  Then you and you likes might have some credibility when you put them down. 

Oh I'm just kidding. I know what the NDP is screaming about. They hate me. I'm a white, English traditionalist; straight and middle class. If the NDP had its way I'd be in a re-education camp. When they refer to the "rich" with righteous indignation in their beady little eyes they're talking about me. They want to take as much of my hard-earned money away from me as they possibly can to give it to non-productive bums and losers on welfare, and to inspire pride in ethnic groups who'll vote NDP, and "artists" who would all be sweeping floors if they didn't have governments to pay them for their "art".

And which programs are "useless and waste"... ones for people who aren't in your situation....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be any program which isn't neccesary. Note that word "necessary". It's not one in the NDP dictionary. Because to them anything they think is a good idea is "necessary". Doling out money to cultural, arts and entertainment groups isn't necessary, and that includes the CBC and NFB. The gun registry isn't necessary.

[shoop]

Oh I'm just kidding. I know what the NDP is screaming about. They hate me. I'm a white, English traditionalist; straight and middle class. If the NDP had its way I'd be in a re-education camp. When they refer to the "rich" with righteous indignation in their beady little eyes they're talking about me. They want to take as much of my hard-earned money away from me as they possibly can to give it to non-productive bums and losers on welfare, and to inspire pride in ethnic groups who'll vote NDP, and "artists" who would all be sweeping floors if they didn't have governments to pay them for their "art".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

tee hee hee

That is a bit of an issue I have with the NDs. If only people would really listen to them everything could be settled. Comes from a divine arrogance in the righteousness of what they believe. If only you could cast aside your self-minded pettiness for once second and really open your mind you would see the truth. The gospel according to Jack.

[err]

GST is a horrible regressive tax.  It was brought in by Mulroney so that they could reduce income taxes...  Who benefits most from reduced income taxes.... The wealthy...

err

I believe the GST replaced a manufacturers excise tax. It did not replace an income tax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you'll look at the timing, Wilson was promising GST at the same time he re-shuffled the tax scales, reduced tax rates, and came out saying that they (Mulroney's government) "were going to get tough on those individuals and companies that paid not taxes"..... and the business community didn't complain. ????? I wonder why ??? (they were promising GST to allow them to afford to drop the tax rates... )

The manufacturers exise tax was removed.... and the theory was that manufacturers would drop their prices correspondingly, so with the GST added, we'd be no worse off.... Ha Ha... did you buy that one too ?

PS. If you really want to know more about this stuff, read Linda McQuaig's "Behind Closed Doors". There's some really eye-opening stuff in there...

[err]

Maybe you should listen to what the NDP is screaming about...  Then you and you likes might have some credibility when you put them down. 

Oh I'm just kidding. I know what the NDP is screaming about. They hate me. I'm a white, English traditionalist; straight and middle class. If the NDP had its way I'd be in a re-education camp.

I think you've given us a good idea of your mindset.... and your mind in general....

When they refer to the "rich" with righteous indignation in their beady little eyes they're talking about me. They want to take as much of my hard-earned money away from me as they possibly can to give it to non-productive bums and losers on welfare, and to inspire pride in ethnic groups who'll vote NDP, and "artists" who would all be sweeping floors if they didn't have governments to pay them for their "art".

Have you tried prozak....

And which programs are "useless and waste"... ones for people who aren't in your situation....

That would be any program which isn't neccesary. Note that word "necessary". It's not one in the NDP dictionary. Because to them anything they think is a good idea is "necessary". Doling out money to cultural, arts and entertainment groups isn't necessary, and that includes the CBC and NFB. The gun registry isn't necessary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really... Maybe you'd prefer to live in a concentration camp ???? Try the prozak first...