Trudeau’s 'unicorns and rainbows' budgeting

[Omnitheo]

You know there is a difference between real jobs created by private industry, and fake jobs created by the government, right?

Yeah jobs by the government pay real wages and don't get shifted over seas so that their CEO's can take home a larger multi-million dollar bonus

[The Green Barbarian]

2016 saw
60400 more full time jobs
153700 more part time jobs

If this is correct, then I am very happy. Now let's try and see how many jobs get created, without incurring another $30 billion more in debt.

[The Green Barbarian]

Yeah jobs by the government pay real wages

Straight out of our tax dollars.

[fvkasm2x]

He has trouble with more than math.

Apparently, some of his Casta-fanbois are struggling with the same issues.

Who needs math when things like budgets sort themselves out in the end? Saves a lot of hassle, knowing that.

We've already established that Harper was the PM in 2006 and 2007, two years that the national debt was paid down. Is this some kind of thing where you think that if you repeat a lie enough times, people start to believe it?

Give him a break man. It's an alternative fact, not a lie

[hobbyguy]

Only in Alt-Fact Con world is it not a business case.

The case that the JT Liberals put to the voters was that we needed to have deficit spending to move the country forward. The case that the Harperites put forward was that we should go backwards, slash and burn government services and go austerity. The NDP were delusional with spending plans and no deficit - which was not anything crack pipe nonsense.

The voters chose to go forward.

[Carrs Landing Viking]

The voters chose never ending debt. Backward.

[hobbyguy]

There is a difference between never ending debt a la Harperite nonsense, and a plan that moves the country forward by investing in it.

One simple example for the 140 character Con crowd:

Instead of taking a chainsaw to the Coast Guard as austerity Harperites did, the JT Liberals are rebuilding it and upgrading it. Without that investment, no chance the TMX goes ahead at all. It will still be a tough scrap, but the odds are now tilted in its favor. Proper marine safety removes the much of the tanker issue from the equation.

So, Harperites Con austerity regime (which I remain convinced was just politics to get to a "balanced" budget) gave the TMX about a 25% chance of success. JT Liberal rebuilding deficit budget gives it about a 50-60% chance of success. (The rest is up to Kinder Morgan to realize they must work with folks, not try and trample them.)

I personally was opposed to the TMX, in large part due to the marine safety issues. However, the salvage tugs and other measures in the JT Liberal plan to rebuild the Coast Guard has switched me to cautiously in favor. I suspect I am not alone in that sentiment.

Old saying: you catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.

The Harperite Con vinegar got real old, real fast.

[hobbyguy]

GB - GM sending jobs to Mexico.

Corporations say that their only duty is to the shareholders - right?

So Harper wanted a "balanced" budget for the election so badly, he sold Canada's shares in GM for an $800 million loss.https://www.thestar.com/business/2015/04/10/ottawa-gets-32-billion-for-gm-shares.html

So Canada is no longer a shareholder. If you aren't a major shareholder, how much leverage do you have?

[The Green Barbarian]

There is a difference between never ending debt a la Harperite nonsense, and a plan that moves the country forward by investing in it.
.

Exactly, just as there is a difference between never-ending and ever-growing budget deficits a la Justin Trudeau nonsense, and a plan that moves the country forward by investing in it. I honestly think if the country saw some sort of investment, instead of the giant massive waste we are seeing from the spend-a-holic Liberals, then Canadians could get on side. But instead we're seeing thousands upon thousands of new minions hired by the drunken sailor Liberals for what? Just to increase bureaucracy? Shame!!!

[The Green Barbarian]

The case that the JT Liberals put to the voters was that we needed to have deficit spending to move the country forward. .

and of course, being the massive Liberal spin-doctor extra-ordinaire, you completely and totally leave out (lie by omission) that JT lied his spoiled *bleep* off about the deficits he would inflict on Canada. He isn't "moving the country forward" at all, despite the protestations of his spin-doctoring minions.

[hobbyguy]

GB - you continue, as always to just spout right wing nonsense. The JT Liberals promised a deficit budget, and Harper would have had one, and so would Mulcair.

Look past the partisan nonsense. Pretty obvious.

1. The population of the Civil Service is, based on historical data, of optimum size.
2. The Harper "balanced" budget was based on one time receipts from the sale of GM shares. It was a deficit without that one time injection cash (which should have been accounted for differently as it was an 800 million loss).
3. The oil prices predicted for future budgets have NOT materialized. Harper and crew had foolishly set up the federal budget to be heavily dependent on oil/bitumen revenues. All eggs in on basket. Further exacerbating that, the royalties from oil/bitumen have not rebounded proportionally with the modest increases in oil prices, and CERI forecasts that royalties will indeed NOT increase in the next decade.

Those facts have been laid out.

No amount of belligerence and chucking of peanuts from the far right bleachers alters those facts.

No Conservative government has ever, over it's lifespan, run surplus budgets. No Conservative government, over its lifespan, has ever paid down the national debt.

At least the Liberals did it once. Doesn't mean that they will do it this time, but the odds are much better than ever trusting the far right, who have proven that they went to the BC NDP school of financial management.

[Rwede]

The budget will balance itself.

[The Green Barbarian]

GB - you continue, as always to just spout right wing nonsense. The JT Liberals promised a deficit budget, .

HG - you are no different in any way. Once again you deflect and spout left wing nonsense. JT Liberals promised a $10 billion deficit and delivered a whopping $30 billion deficit. And yet here you are still babbling away about Harper. Pure partisan nonsense. What are we getting for this $30 billion annual deficit that our grandkids are going to be stuck with? What is the point of all this? Instead of trying to hopelessly deflect, tell me, what are we Canadians getting for this drunken sailor spending by the Liberals????? Here's a hint- close your eyes. What do you see!

[The Green Barbarian]

No Conservative government has ever, over it's lifespan, run surplus budgets. No Conservative government, over its lifespan, has ever paid down the national debt.
.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

The Canadian federal budget for the 2007–2008 fiscal year was presented to the Canadian House of Commons by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on March 19, 2007. The federal budget included $14 billion in new spending and $5.7 billion in tax cuts. This was the second budget of the 39th Canadian Parliament.

Since the government held a minority, the budget needed support of at least one opposition party. On March 29, 2007, Bill C-52, the enabling legislation to implement the budget, received First Reading in the House of Commons with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The New Democratic Party and Liberal Party voted against it.

Many politicians believe that the changes to equalization disregard the Atlantic Accord. There was speculation that some Atlantic government members would vote against the Budget, but only Bill Casey did, and was subsequently removed from Caucus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cana ... ral_budget

[d0nb]

While Liberal governments are responsible incurring most of Canada's debt - including the interest payments that were accumulated during the Mulroney years - a big part of the problem just might be traced back to something that happened in 1974. http://qualicuminstitute.ca/federal-debt/

The argument that the sound policies of the US/Can governments of the 90's were responsible for the brief period of surpluses is unsupportable. Such silliness reached a peak with stories like this one from the ever-thoughtful NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/31/us/su ... llion.html) which continues its tradition of journalistic integrity today by giving Paul Krugman a place to vent.