The Official Quit Picking on Stephen Harper Thread


Frankiedoodle
#1
On the news tonight I heard them report that they "found" money enough for a 1.9 billion surplus. I guess the conservatives tightened their belts enough (cut the money out of programs that are needed). It happened at a very fortuitous time. A funny story. My NDP candidate came to the door. I asked him how his party was going to pay for $15/day childcare. He said paying $15/hr for 6 kids. Didn't say where they would be house. To me it is amazing how this 1.9 billion is going to be spent so many times over. Kind of like a kid dreaming about over spending his allowance.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by FrankiedoodleView Post

On the news tonight I heard them report that they "found" money enough for a 1.9 billion surplus. I guess the conservatives tightened their belts enough (cut the money out of programs that are needed). It happened at a very fortuitous time. A funny story. My NDP candidate came to the door. I asked him how his party was going to pay for $15/day childcare. He said paying $15/hr for 6 kids. Didn't say where they would be house. To me it is amazing how this 1.9 billion is going to be spent so many times over. Kind of like a kid dreaming about over spending his allowance.

The N.D.P. is by far the best political party............................................. .....................until someone else's money runs out! (You may not have been on here the last time I said that)
 
tay
#3
Somehow, I really don't trust these fellows in government, right now. They've done nothing to impress upon me they in any way understand taxation. Or even representation. They don't understand governing, whatsoever, to be honest.

A $1.9 billion surplus when they'd forecast a $2 billion deficit? Seems shady. Something stinks of a lie.

The most likely reason is the government is excluding something from the budget.

Some thing or things totaling $3 billion in spending, not being accounted for by this Conservative government. It'd be nice if we had a budget officer who'd have already looked into the numbers to announce whether the government was being honest or not.

The Military, Veterans Affairs, the CBC, Air Canada, the NFB, healthcare, Canada Pension Plan, ect, and ect.

Somebody, the press and opposition parties, needs to look into these numbers, and do it quick, because they stink of fudge.

Thankfully and surprisingly the Ottawa Citizen has.......

Lee Berthiaume reports (link is external) (external - login to view) on the $8.7 billion budgeted but unspent by the federal government over the past year. And if the Cons want to try to claim credit for the government's fiscal position, then surely they have to answer a couple of key questions for the money that went unspent:

What caused them to decide between 2014 and 2015 that the funding they themselves included in the budget shouldn't be used? And if they're on such an unsound fiscal footing that they feel the need to slash this much within a year of passing their preferred funding amounts in a majority Parliament, why would anybody take their platform numbers and promises seriously?

While the Conservatives have portrayed lapses as proof of economic prudence, critics say they amount to cuts by stealth. They say this is how the government can take money from Veterans Affairs, National Defence and other departments without actually cutting budgets.

Canadians won’t know exactly which departments or programs were affected until after the election, when the government publishes its annual detailed accounts. But figures produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office over the weekend provide an idea of where some of the money came from.


more

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year | Ottawa Citizen (external - login to view)
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Somehow, I really don't trust these fellows in government, right now. They've done nothing to impress upon me they in any way understand taxation. Or even representation. They don't understand governing, whatsoever, to be honest.

I suppose when the (your party here) get in, you'll become trusting to the point of gullibility, and post ferocious defenses of everything they do, no?

Quote:

A $1.9 billion surplus when they'd forecast a $2 billion deficit? Seems shady. Something stinks of a lie.

Is there any non-wackaloon, independent source calling it into question?

Quote:

The most likely reason is the government is excluding something from the budget.

Some thing or things totaling $3 billion in spending, not being accounted for by this Conservative government. It'd be nice if we had a budget officer who'd have already looked into the numbers to announce whether the government was being honest or not.

I hope you're not in charge. a $2bn deficit to a $1.9bn surplus rounds to a $4bn difference, not $3bn.

Quote:

The Military, Veterans Affairs, the CBC, Air Canada, the NFB, healthcare, Canada Pension Plan, ect, and ect.

Somebody, the press and opposition parties, needs to look into these numbers, and do it quick, because they stink of fudge.

Thankfully and surprisingly the Ottawa Citizen has.......

Lee Berthiaume reports (link is external) (external - login to view) on the $8.7 billion budgeted but unspent by the federal government over the past year. And if the Cons want to try to claim credit for the government's fiscal position, then surely they have to answer a couple of key questions for the money that went unspent:

What caused them to decide between 2014 and 2015 that the funding they themselves included in the budget shouldn't be used? And if they're on such an unsound fiscal footing that they feel the need to slash this much within a year of passing their preferred funding amounts in a majority Parliament, why would anybody take their platform numbers and promises seriously?

While the Conservatives have portrayed lapses as proof of economic prudence, critics say they amount to cuts by stealth. They say this is how the government can take money from Veterans Affairs, National Defence and other departments without actually cutting budgets.

Canadians won’t know exactly which departments or programs were affected until after the election, when the government publishes its annual detailed accounts. But figures produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office over the weekend provide an idea of where some of the money came from.

more

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year | Ottawa Citizen (external - login to view)

So, is it fair to say that NDP and Liberal supporters oppose surpluses?
 
mentalfloss
#5
No one opposes a surplus in principle, but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services. The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No one opposes a surplus in principle,

Unless a Conservative government is in power.

Quote:

but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services.

So, what's your desideratum? Specifically, what "services" should be provided to all by the government, and what should be the level of taxation?

Quote:

The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.

Admit it, if the country was in a one-penny deficit, you'd be screaming from the housetops that Harper has DOOOOOOOMED Canada.
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
#7
Mentalfloss would lick the sweat of TJ's balls if he could.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#8
It is called watching the pennies. To make this little difference all they would have to do is stop the multitudes of ministries from spending their mad money in the spring.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Mentalfloss would lick the sweat of TJ's balls if he could.

I'm sure whoeverdafuq "TJ" is would appreciate that.

Thomas Jefferson? Tom Jones? Tim Horton?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#10
Trudeau Junior?
 
B00Mer
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Trudeau Junior?

Up that'll work..

I meant JT, but something typing on a iPhone, it's hard to see what you're writing.

Justin Trudeau or Trudeau Junior..
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Up that'll work..

I meant JT, but something typing on a iPhone, it's hard to see what you're writing.

Hard to see where you're driving, too.

LOOK OUT!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No one opposes a surplus in principle, but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services. The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.

I disagree, services are good in good times, when the economy is down we should be doing more for ourselves and depending less on services. During tough times we should be laying off bureaucraps, not hiring more.

Quote: Originally Posted by B00MerView Post

Mentalfloss would lick the sweat of TJ's balls if he could.

Just refer to him as Jr. everyone understands that!

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No one opposes a surplus in principle, but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services. The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.

We are probably one of the over serviced countries in the world.
 
coldstream
+1
#14
The Nobel Prize for Economics.. was NOT one of the original categories specified by Alfred Nobel, and is not now an 'official' award. The Nobel Committee was payed for the use of the name. It was conceived and bankrolled by a Swedish bank, in order to promote Global Free Market Economic theory and first awarded in 1969.

Free Trade and monetarism, deregulation and privatization has brought on an era of vast polarization of wealth, death of the Middle Class (of home ownership, access to affordable higher education, to secure employment and pensions), deindustrialization, rampant speculation, indebtedness, market turmoil and corruption through out the West.. which is in imminent and seemingly irreversable economic decline.

So for Harper's creative and deceptive bookkeeping, for his tireless and pathetic grovelling before the Global Financial and Trading oligarchies, for his abandonment of Canada's economic integrity and future.. maybe he does deserve the 'award'. Given to quislings and obfuscants.. for disguising the dire straits in which his policies have placed us.

Sit stephen, roll over, wag.. here's your bone.. wuff.
Last edited by coldstream; Sep 15th, 2015 at 01:02 PM..
 
EagleSmack
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No one opposes a surplus in principle, but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services. The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.

This must make you a very salty Moonbat.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstreamView Post

The Nobel Prize for Economics.. was NOT one of the original categories specified by Alfred Nobel, and is not now an 'official' award. The Nobel Committee was payed for the use of the name. It was conceived and bankrolled by a Swedish bank, in order to promote Global Free Market Economic theory and first awarded in 1969.

Free Trade and monetarism, deregulation and privatization has brought on an era of vast polarization of wealth, death of the Middle Class (of home ownership, access to affordable higher education, to secure employment and pensions), deindustrialization, rampant speculation, indebtedness, and corruption through out the West.. which is in imminent and seemingly irreversable economic decline.

So for Harper's creative and deceptive bookkeeping, for his tireless and pathetic grovelling before the Global Financial and Trading oligarchies, for his abandonment of Canada's economic integrity and future.. maybe he does deserve the 'award'. Given to quislings and obfuscants.. for disguising the dire straits in which his policies have placed us. Harper should have the award as a mark of his treachery.

Sit stephen, roll over, wag.. here's your bone.. wuff.

What seems to prevent people from connecting the continuous warfare conducted on the already free world to make it bend to the conspirators will of instituting this Global Free Market Economic monolith is that one word "free". Oh how that word has been pounded into us very far past the point of it's neutral meaning. It's proponents lust after the freedom to rape pillage and burn and nothing else but that. The exceeding few will be free the rest will be in permanent bondage. He should have the award, as a mark of his treachery.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This must make you a very salty Moonbat.

The tards really have their panties all in a bunch today
 
Frankiedoodle
#18
The reason that I wanted to give hom the Nobel Economics award is because Harper has his degree in economics.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The tards really have their panties all in a bunch today

Yeah, they are having a hard time bad mouthing Harper, since his surplus was divulged.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#20
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Your benevolence knows no bounds, Cliffy!
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Your benevolence knows no bounds, Cliffy!

Your faith in Helmet Head is unfounded.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Your faith in Helmet Head is unfounded.

He's a politician, Cliffy and he's done me no harm in 9 years! Need I say more?
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

He's a politician, Cliffy and he's done me no harm in 9 years! Need I say more?

Not yet.
I'm not concerned with what he does or doesn't do for me. What he has done to others (indigenous peoples, veterans, scientists and science, education, youth, the elderly) and this country does concern me.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Not yet.
I'm not concerned with what he does or doesn't do for me. What he has done to others (indigenous peoples, veterans, scientists and science, education, youth, the elderly) and this country does concern me.

I don't want to piss on your parade, Cliffy, but I can pick away at it. For starters education is a provincial matter and I'm included in the elderly & getting two pensions from him. What scientists has he harmed? Most of the harm done to indigenous people was already done decades before he arrived on the scene. There's some improvement still needed in that regard and I think he recognizes it. I think there is still improvement needed for some veterans, but I don't think the healthy ones have much of a claim as they knew what they were getting into when they embarked on the career. Many of them got subsidized housing and education. But aside from all that Harper and all other politicians are limited by financial restraints and then there's guys like me who bitch when their taxes go up. I understand where you are coming from - my grand daughter and my sister both think he's an arch a$$hole. But they are quite naïve.
 
tay
#26
Harper defends his budget 'surplus' by admitting that there might have been some government departments that didn't spend all of their budgets but adding that government agencies aren't expected to spend every last dime they're given. Sounds good except..........

This item from CBC News last February reveals just how Harper is twisting the truth (link is external). It concerns the RCMP's unspent and 'refunded' budget for child pornography investigations.

Canada's national police force Mounties withheld some $10 million in funds (link is external) earmarked for its National Child Exploitation Co-ordination Centre and related projects, linchpins of the government's anti-child-pornography agenda.

The cuts, made partly as an RCMP contribution to the government's so-called deficit reduction action plan, have occurred even as the number of child-exploitation tips from the public increase exponentially.

The systematic underfunding is highlighted in a draft report prepared for Public Safety Canada, and obtained through the Access to Information Act.

The document, dated November last year, says the RCMP failed to spend its full $8-million annual budget to catch online child abusers throughout the five-year period ending in 2013.

Maybe there's less kiddie porn. That might account for the savings. Except that's not the case, just the opposite. In 2012 the RCMP received 10,000 tips. By 2015 that had swelled to 40,000 tips a year.

And let's not even get into what they've done to deserving veterans.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#27
I'm not sure about a Nobel Prize but he certainly deserves credit for enough savvy to save a couple of shekkels (a shekel = $1billion) for a rainy day such as now when he needs ammunition to get re elected. I live in the same country under most of the conditions as the multitude of whiners and the whining is sure getting f**king tiresome, especially from those willing to piss away $billions on refugees.
 
tay
#28
Imagine what could have been........


Market analysts and union leaders say the Harper government may have gotten a bad deal in selling off its remaining shares in General Motors, and one estimate projects a $3.5-billion loss for taxpayers.

The share sale was widely seen as an attempt to balance the federal government’s books ahead of this year’s election -- as the Tories had vowed -- despite a drop in oil revenues.

But according to calculations carried out by the Globe and Mail, this means taxpayers will take a $3.5-billion loss on Ottawa and Ontario’s investment in the automaker, which is a major employer in southern Ontario.

Including this week’s share sale, and the Ontario government’s $1.1-billion sale of GM shares in February, the two governments have recouped only $10.2 billion of the $13.7 billion they invested, the Globe calculated.

Many market analysts think the government would have been better off holding on to the shares a while longer. According to a report at the Financial Post (external - login to view), 14 of 24 analysts who follow GM say the time is right to buy, while only two are advising investors to sell.

“If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers,” John Stephenson, CEO of Stephenson & Co. Capital Management, told the Post.

Canadian Taxpayers Lost Billions On Tories' Badly-Timed GM Share Sale: Analysts (external - login to view)
 
AnnaG
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by tayView Post

Somehow, I really don't trust these fellows in government, right now. They've done nothing to impress upon me they in any way understand taxation. Or even representation. They don't understand governing, whatsoever, to be honest.

A $1.9 billion surplus when they'd forecast a $2 billion deficit? Seems shady. Something stinks of a lie.

The most likely reason is the government is excluding something from the budget.

Some thing or things totaling $3 billion in spending, not being accounted for by this Conservative government. It'd be nice if we had a budget officer who'd have already looked into the numbers to announce whether the government was being honest or not.

The Military, Veterans Affairs, the CBC, Air Canada, the NFB, healthcare, Canada Pension Plan, ect, and ect.

Somebody, the press and opposition parties, needs to look into these numbers, and do it quick, because they stink of fudge.

Thankfully and surprisingly the Ottawa Citizen has.......

Lee Berthiaume reports (link is external) (external - login to view) on the $8.7 billion budgeted but unspent by the federal government over the past year. And if the Cons want to try to claim credit for the government's fiscal position, then surely they have to answer a couple of key questions for the money that went unspent:

What caused them to decide between 2014 and 2015 that the funding they themselves included in the budget shouldn't be used? And if they're on such an unsound fiscal footing that they feel the need to slash this much within a year of passing their preferred funding amounts in a majority Parliament, why would anybody take their platform numbers and promises seriously?

While the Conservatives have portrayed lapses as proof of economic prudence, critics say they amount to cuts by stealth. They say this is how the government can take money from Veterans Affairs, National Defence and other departments without actually cutting budgets.

Canadians won’t know exactly which departments or programs were affected until after the election, when the government publishes its annual detailed accounts. But figures produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office over the weekend provide an idea of where some of the money came from.


more

Federal departments left $8.7 billion unspent last year | Ottawa Citizen (external - login to view)

Erm, why in the world would you trust ANYONE in governmentat ANY time?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

No one opposes a surplus in principle, but it should be achieved through economic growth not slashing services. The fact that this surplus is less than 0.1% of our GDP just shows it's nothing to celebrate and is nothing to do with 'economics'.

Got to disagree with that, The Gov't is the worst organization for delivering services. We could get most services for the half the price if they were farmed out to the private sector and the bureaucraps got laid off. They could retain one bureaucrap as a watch dog to check on deliveries.
 

Similar Threads

45
Quit Picking on Hillary...........
by DaSleeper | Dec 21st, 2016
559
Quit Picking On Romney
by gopher | Jun 12th, 2016
no new posts