Conservative surplus wrong it was 12 not 8 billion

[Toro]

Low-balling the surplus number is good business, since it makes the bond market happy and keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would. Investors don't like surprises, especially bad surprises, and will pay a premium to avoid being hit with a negative surprise. Thus, investors in the bond market bid up the price of debt higher than it otherwise would, which keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would.

This was good under Martin, and was a silly criticism by the Tories. If the Tories promised to stop this practice, this is one promise you want them to break.

 

[missile]

Now,if a surplus was assured by the governing party...and it truly was in deficit: Then I'd be PO'd!

 

[Said1]

The conservatives estimated 8 and it's 12. The Liberals esitmated 1.9 and it turned out to be 9.1. Ooopps.


I see what you mean, total hypocrites. :lol:

Liberal Math Dyslexia

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Conservative surplus wrong it was 12 not 8 billion

Good Lord!

You guys are just ridiculous!

First the Tories were going to bankrupt us all.

Now they are liars.........

On March 31, the Conservative government had been in power for less than SIXTY DAYS!

Give them a break! They probably had NO IDEA what the surplus would be.

Geezus!

:lol:

 

[BitWhys]

Low-balling the surplus number is good business, since it makes the bond market happy and keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would. Investors don't like surprises, especially bad surprises, and will pay a premium to avoid being hit with a negative surprise. Thus, investors in the bond market bid up the price of debt higher than it otherwise would, which keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would.

This was good under Martin, and was a silly criticism by the Tories. If the Tories promised to stop this practice, this is one promise you want them to break.

wouldn't a larger (and credible) projected surplus increase downward pressure on interest rates? (not to challenge you or anything. I just like brainteasers)

 

[FiveParadox]

That's not the point, Colpy.

According to the events of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada thinks that surpluses are something evil, to be avoided at all costs — which would seem to indicate to me that they don't herald debt reduction as much as they would wish to imply to us now. Why are surpluses now a good thing? And since they thought that the Liberal Party of Canada mispredicting the surplus was tantamount to treason, why is this practice acceptable under their Government?

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Conservative surplus wrong it was 12 not 8 billion

That's not the point, Colpy.

According to the events of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada thinks that surpluses are something evil, to be avoided at all costs — which would seem to indicate to me that they don't herald debt reduction as much as they would wish to imply to us now. Why are surpluses now a good thing? And since they thought that the Liberal Party of Canada mispredicting the surplus was tantamount to treason, why is this practice acceptable under their Government?

First of all, I certainly agree that this government does not do enough on debt reduction. I would much rather have seen our taxes stay the same, with the money put towards the debt. Political reality dictates otherwise, however.

I never thought the Conservatives thought surpluses were evil.......just outlandish taxation (in their view, or perhaps I should say our view} See above for my personal opinion on that.

I don't believe the Conservatives were trying to mislead anyone in this case. I honestly think their inexperience and brief time in office with the books at their command led them to make an honest error.

I mean, the Liberals were criticized for misjudging the budget by 375%, and 7.2 billion dollars when it was their year.......the Conservatives misjudged the budget by 4 billion dollars (50%) when they had been in command of the books for a month.

If they do this NEXT year, I'll join you in jumping all over them.

 

[Jay]

The Market place doesn't dictate we need to rush out and eliminate the debt....we are in better standing than most other nations in the world and that is what matters. Unless we get some debt free aliens in the picture we are safe.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Interest on the Debt

... Man, the stuff the news doesn't tell you...

There's the rub. It isn't news.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, contrary to you, I think that debt reduction is important. If we reduce the debt, then we can reduce the amount that we are spending on the debt's interest, and we would have more funds for program spending, tax relief, defense, and et cetera. Seventeen cents out of every tax dollar was used for interest in the last budget! That's not even paying down the debt, it's to make sure that the debt doesn't increase.

And Colpy, I'm not saying that the present Government of Canada should be thrown out over something like this, not by any stretch of the phrase. I do think, however, that this is an opportunity for a party who was in opposition for thirteen years, to realize that managing the books is not an easy a task as they may have thought. This is a learning experience, in my opinion; they should be criticized, though, if only to start a fire beneath them.

 

[Jay]

The debt is being paid off though. The amount of money being used to service the debt before was something like $0.30 for every tax dollar brought in.

I didn't say it wasn't important, as it is important, but we are in a far better place to bring in investment then many other nations that matter. It's not really a black and white issue.

 

[Toro]

wouldn't a larger (and credible) projected surplus increase downward pressure on interest rates? (not to challenge you or anything. I just like brainteasers)

Its a matter of credibility. But that credibility is assymetrical. Your credibility dissipates faster on the downside than it is built up on the upside. So thus its better to err on the side of being conservative. This is especially true when you have a new, untested and inexperienced government, especially a minority government. The greater the difference between the projected surplus and the actual surplus, the better it is for not just Harper but also Canada. Maybe after Harper wins his soon-to-come majority, they won't need as big of a cushion. But right now, its smart.

Martin was brilliant at this as finance minister, and it is he who gets the credit more than anyone for Canada's standing in the international financial community.

 

[#juan]

I think, because of the demand for our products,

Our trade is increasing. We are selling more goods to more people so the surplus is growing. In any case, it is better to err on the positive side than the negative.

 

[Jay]

I do think Martin had the fourtune of "Free trade" behind him....I doubt we would be in near the same boat without it.

 

[Vicious]

RE: Conservative surplus

I agree with Toro on this one but not entirely. I agree that is it far better to show a surplus year after year than to have a deficit. However you'd think after a few years of practice you would be better at the whole budgeting process. I think it's far better to create a realistic budget (and include amounts to pay off some of the debt) and march to that. At the end of the year if you have a deficit or surplus you come clean as to why ($4B was due to unexpected income tax revenues or whatever) and you factor that new reality into the next budget cycle. The goal being to get closer and closer to your actual budget numbers. However the Liberals consistently lowballed all revenue and built in the surplus in the budgeting exercise. Although the markets may like this because it insulates the government from a deficit. Taxpayers hate this because it means the government is purposely taking more than they need. So when you run a 1 or 2 percent surplus you are golden, when you run a 10% surplus you have taken too much from taxpayers.

 

[Vicious]

RE: Conservative surplus

Perhaps you haven't read my posts in their entirety, Vicious. My opinion on this matter is that the Conservative Party of Canada should use this as a "learning experience", if you would, to the effect that managing the books is not as easy as they may have thought during the previous Parliament of Canada. The Government of Canada, in opposition, pushed the opinion that surpluses were a bad thing, to be condemned — I think it was a hasty decision to oppose surpluses in previous years, and I hope that they realize now that they can be a very good thing, for programs, and for the debt.

Apologies in advance. It's late on a Friday for me. I'm in a goofy mood and to top it all off I never know which emoticon to use for sarcasm, etc. hell I only type with two fingers.

Your first post. Surpluses section.

A budget should include proposed debt payments so that Canadians can understand the importance of paying down the debt and the governement can demonstrate their grasp of the countries finances. Surpluses should be small.

I agree that the debt should be paid down. Please find $20B worth of programs you'd like to kill. Oh sorry you are a liberal - you'll just raise taxes.
Long Term in political terms is until the next election. So for the harper gang that's like 6-12 months

Your first post. Hipocracy section.

The conservatives were right to criticize the liberals for over taxing. see my previous post. Their surplus projections were dead wrong. Let's take the lot of em out behind the gym and lay the boots to them.
You don't need a large surplus to pay off the debt, you can plan within your budget to pay off the debt.

Your second post: $34.1 B to service the debt, 17 cents on the dollar. I'll trust you either have good googling skills or have a link to the government website. As I would have said when I was 17 'Bitchin'' that's roughly the equivelant to 'I concur'.

Your third post: do I really hafta comment on this? OK, ok, Oh great and powerful FivePairaDocMartins wizard, please don't blast me with your forked truth bolt from the deep.

I imagine you are working on some Sailor Moon kind of imagery there but I don't do Sailer Moon or Yu-Gi-Oh or any of that ummm.... stuff. I do like Puffi Ami Umi though.

Your fourth post:

You can't make me review all the events of the 38th Parliament. However surpluses and debt reduction are only linked by the fact that if you have a surplus you can pay down the debt with it (among other things). You could if you were a decent financial manager put your annual debt payments into your budget at the beginning of the year. Not sure about the conservatives calling it treason. Are those your words or maybe you can give me a handsard reference.

Your fifth post:

Yep reduce the debt, more money for other things. I vote for tax relief. 17 cents on the dollar. No issues with that.
Don't throw out the governement for this. I'm with you there. Managing the books is not an easy task. On this particular point I will disagree. I will take this position. By making ministers and deputies etc responsible for their budget and the accuracy there of. I believe there will be alot less of this 'I didn't know that money went missing' business. I'm not suggestion going Sarbanes-Oxley, but more of a Buck Stops here kinda approach. Call it the Paul Martin Finance Legacy Act. Ahh, here's your learning experience thought jammed in there between the blue and the bolding. No wonder I glossed over it. I'm ahhh.. for Learning. However I do expect a certain level of learning would have been done by these parliamentarians before they signed up. What about the numerous bureaucrats in the Finance dept that have been there since you were born, maybe they're due for some learning too?