At least back in the 80s, you could do 100 mph (161 kph) on the state highway, and the cops'd just wave as you blew past 'em.
Well, today is the Liberal/NDP Non-Coalition Coalition Budget Day!
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
But here we are…prorogue’d instead.
Maybe some charges are coming? It will get out sooner or later but hopefully sooner than later.But here we are…prorogue’d instead.
Same day as Freebird? Whoops. Fraser was the housing minister and he was gonna lose his cabinet seat in the shuffle to make room for…Carney? Fraser quit to spend time with family.
….& he must be done with that because…
(I’m sure it had nothing to do with the liberals absolutely tanking at that point, but maybe his family isn’t polling well now so…)
Huh…weird…
People get mad when someone attacks a politician’s family member. A few days ago, for example, a partisan jerk posted some garbage about the sexuality of one of Mark Carney’s kids. It was disgusting. It was despicable.
It was condemned by just about everyone, Conservatives and New Democrats included. That’s good.
So, you generally shouldn’t involve family when you talk about a politician. It’s a rule.
But three recent sort-of exceptions come to mind. Not because of anything they’ve done. Not because they’ve broken any statutes or laws or anything. They’re all probably wonderful people, enduring their family member’s political career in relative silence.
But, honestly, families of Liberals Anita Anand, Sean Fraser and Nate Erskine-Smith: How are you feeling? Quite a few of us are wondering that.
Here’s why: Nate, Anita and Sean all said they were leaving politics, back when the Liberal Party was in the basement of public opinion. All mentioned their families. Back, you know, when the Conservatives were 30 points or so ahead of the Liberals.
All three said they were leaving politics to spend more time with family — or return to a normal life or whatever. So how’s that working out?
Back in December, Fraser made quite a show of it. He was housing minister, back then, and he called a press conference to say he was quitting cabinet and his Nova Scotia seat. “My kids aren’t getting any younger and they’re going to need their dad around,” Fraser said. He got pretty choked up…but that was way back few months ago.
Anita Anand did more or less the same thing. A few days after Sean Fraser left politics to spend a few minutes with family, Anand — also a cabinet minister — said she was packing it in…but again that was way back a month or two ago?
Nate Erskine-Smith, meanwhile, made his resignation announcement earlier on. He made a pretty unambiguous Facebook post about it, too. “I won’t be running in the next federal election.” Full stop. No qualifiers, there.
Well, whaddya know: Nate’s back, too. His re-election signs have popped up again on lawns in the Beach, like Spring flowers. One must assume he didn’t recycle them when he “resigned.”
Anyway. Spare a thought, this week, for the families of these three Liberal politicians. They probably are as bewildered as the rest of us.
Because quitting to “spend more time with family”? Uh-huh.
KINSELLA: Three Libs now running after initially saying 'family' a reason they wouldn't
The rule, almost all of the time, is to never go after family of politicians.
"Turns out my family are all insufferable assholes, so I'm back in!"View attachment 28358
Huh…weird…
People get mad when someone attacks a politician’s family member. A few days ago, for example, a partisan jerk posted some garbage about the sexuality of one of Mark Carney’s kids. It was disgusting. It was despicable.
It was condemned by just about everyone, Conservatives and New Democrats included. That’s good.
So, you generally shouldn’t involve family when you talk about a politician. It’s a rule.
But three recent sort-of exceptions come to mind. Not because of anything they’ve done. Not because they’ve broken any statutes or laws or anything. They’re all probably wonderful people, enduring their family member’s political career in relative silence.
But, honestly, families of Liberals Anita Anand, Sean Fraser and Nate Erskine-Smith: How are you feeling? Quite a few of us are wondering that.
Here’s why: Nate, Anita and Sean all said they were leaving politics, back when the Liberal Party was in the basement of public opinion. All mentioned their families. Back, you know, when the Conservatives were 30 points or so ahead of the Liberals.
All three said they were leaving politics to spend more time with family — or return to a normal life or whatever. So how’s that working out?
Back in December, Fraser made quite a show of it. He was housing minister, back then, and he called a press conference to say he was quitting cabinet and his Nova Scotia seat. “My kids aren’t getting any younger and they’re going to need their dad around,” Fraser said. He got pretty choked up…but that was way back few months ago.
Anita Anand did more or less the same thing. A few days after Sean Fraser left politics to spend a few minutes with family, Anand — also a cabinet minister — said she was packing it in…but again that was way back a month or two ago?
Nate Erskine-Smith, meanwhile, made his resignation announcement earlier on. He made a pretty unambiguous Facebook post about it, too. “I won’t be running in the next federal election.” Full stop. No qualifiers, there.
Well, whaddya know: Nate’s back, too. His re-election signs have popped up again on lawns in the Beach, like Spring flowers. One must assume he didn’t recycle them when he “resigned.”
Anyway. Spare a thought, this week, for the families of these three Liberal politicians. They probably are as bewildered as the rest of us.
Because quitting to “spend more time with family”? Uh-huh.
KINSELLA: Three Libs now running after initially saying 'family' a reason they wouldn't
The rule, almost all of the time, is to never go after family of politicians.torontosun.com
The great Liberal myth-making machine has fabricated the fairytale that Carney was responsible for managing Canada’s economy through the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 when he was governor of the Bank of Canada.
This (Canada’s) country’s central banker in practice sets the prime interest rate. Fiscal and monetary policies are entirely in the hands of the government. Jim Flaherty, an outstanding finance minister in Ottawa and a brilliant treasurer in Ontario, guided us through that crisis. The banking system was saved by the conservative ratios established and administered under the Bank Act by the superintendent of financial institutions.
Mark Carney was a factotum as the losses from the effects in this country of the implosion of the American real estate bubble were absorbed under the guidelines governing the banking system.
apple.news
Where Carney did have influence was as an advisor of the Justin Trudeau government and we have him to thank, in part, for carbon taxes, the non-construction of pipelines, mountainous deficits, and irresponsible bloating of the money supply. This is Mark Carney’s celebrated “experience:” that of being mistaken on every major issue.
It would be unfair not to mention Mark Carney’s performance as governor of the Bank of England. He threw himself head-first into a rending referendum campaign over remaining in or departing the European Union, when his duty was to be impartial and responsible.
His successor as governor of the Bank of England has repudiated his stentorian campaign to terrorize the British people into voting to submit definitively to the authority in Brussels. At the same time, he transformed the central bank into an agency for frenzied advocacy of an extreme green agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with central banking and was, to say the least, little appreciated in the UK.
nationalpost.com
www.independent.co.uk
nationalpost.com
This (Canada’s) country’s central banker in practice sets the prime interest rate. Fiscal and monetary policies are entirely in the hands of the government. Jim Flaherty, an outstanding finance minister in Ottawa and a brilliant treasurer in Ontario, guided us through that crisis. The banking system was saved by the conservative ratios established and administered under the Bank Act by the superintendent of financial institutions.Mark Carney was a factotum as the losses from the effects in this country of the implosion of the American real estate bubble were absorbed under the guidelines governing the banking system.
Conrad Black: A Mark Carney win would be a disaster for Canada — National Post
The country would regret it
It would be unfair not to mention Mark Carney’s performance as governor of the Bank of England. He threw himself head-first into a rending referendum campaign over remaining in or departing the European Union, when his duty was to be impartial and responsible.
His successor as governor of the Bank of England has repudiated his stentorian campaign to terrorize the British people into voting to submit definitively to the authority in Brussels. At the same time, he transformed the central bank into an agency for frenzied advocacy of an extreme green agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with central banking and was, to say the least, little appreciated in the UK.
Carney 'did a terrible job' as Bank of England governor, says former British PM
Former British prime minister Liz Truss said Liberal leader Mark Carney "did a terrible job" as the Bank of England governor.
Liz Truss blames Mark Carney for causing economic meltdown ‘on her watch’
Former PM said Mark Carney did a ‘terrible job’ as Bank of England governor and created the problems which sparked her downfall
www.independent.co.uk
Michael Taube: Heed Britain's stern warnings about Mark Carney
The British press has been far more critical of our new prime minister than our own
CPP Investment Board and Canadian banks scooped up billions and billions in US assets for pennies on the CAD that had a 10% advantage over the USD. That's what stabilized the Canadian economy and recovered godawful lot of lost pensions tied in the derivative scandals.The great Liberal myth-making machine has fabricated the fairytale that Carney was responsible for managing Canada’s economy through the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 when he was governor of the Bank of Canada.
View attachment 28695This (Canada’s) country’s central banker in practice sets the prime interest rate. Fiscal and monetary policies are entirely in the hands of the government. Jim Flaherty, an outstanding finance minister in Ottawa and a brilliant treasurer in Ontario, guided us through that crisis. The banking system was saved by the conservative ratios established and administered under the Bank Act by the superintendent of financial institutions.
View attachment 28694
Mark Carney was a factotum as the losses from the effects in this country of the implosion of the American real estate bubble were absorbed under the guidelines governing the banking system.
Where Carney did have influence was as an advisor of the Justin Trudeau government and we have him to thank, in part, for carbon taxes, the non-construction of pipelines, mountainous deficits, and irresponsible bloating of the money supply. This is Mark Carney’s celebrated “experience:” that of being mistaken on every major issue.Conrad Black: A Mark Carney win would be a disaster for Canada — National Post
The country would regret it
View attachment 28696
It would be unfair not to mention Mark Carney’s performance as governor of the Bank of England. He threw himself head-first into a rending referendum campaign over remaining in or departing the European Union, when his duty was to be impartial and responsible.
His successor as governor of the Bank of England has repudiated his stentorian campaign to terrorize the British people into voting to submit definitively to the authority in Brussels. At the same time, he transformed the central bank into an agency for frenzied advocacy of an extreme green agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with central banking and was, to say the least, little appreciated in the UK.
Carney 'did a terrible job' as Bank of England governor, says former British PM
Former British prime minister Liz Truss said Liberal leader Mark Carney "did a terrible job" as the Bank of England governor.Liz Truss blames Mark Carney for causing economic meltdown ‘on her watch’
Former PM said Mark Carney did a ‘terrible job’ as Bank of England governor and created the problems which sparked her downfallMichael Taube: Heed Britain's stern warnings about Mark Carney
The British press has been far more critical of our new prime minister than our own
All the filings are still available thru the Security Exchange Commission search engine called EDGAR. Whomever it was who talked Obama into that deserves the cookie pinned to their chest.
The Liberals won the federal election on Monday partly as a result of the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to his fiscal plan, he doesn’t think his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was spending and borrowing enough.
apple.news
To recap, the Trudeau Liberal government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1-trillion in debt and recorded the six highest-spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023. Last fall, it projected large deficits (and $400-billion in additional debt) over the next four years, including a $42.2-billion deficit this fiscal year.
By contrast, under Mr. Carney’s Liberal plan, this year’s deficit is set to increase to a projected $62.4-billion. The combined deficits over the subsequent three years is expected to be $67.7-billion higher than under Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal plan. Consequently, the federal debt and associated interest costs will rise sharply.
Under Mr. Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3-billion in 2028-29, compared with $68.7-billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. Oh well.
apple.news
All Canadians should care about government transparency. The federal government should provide timely and comprehensible reporting on its finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. But the Carney government’s new spending framework — which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget — will instead reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: operating and capital. Government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces and to individual Canadians (e.g., Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will count as capital. The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 but fund increased spending within the capital budget with more borrowing.
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” In reality, it will muddy the waters, making it harder to evaluate the true state of federal finances.
financialpost.com
Opinion: Hey big spender Mark Carney, poised for economic and fiscal disaster — The Globe and Mail
This year’s deficit will increase to $62.4-billion. Combined deficits over the subsequent years will be $67.7-billion higher than under Justin Trudeau
By contrast, under Mr. Carney’s Liberal plan, this year’s deficit is set to increase to a projected $62.4-billion. The combined deficits over the subsequent three years is expected to be $67.7-billion higher than under Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal plan. Consequently, the federal debt and associated interest costs will rise sharply.
Under Mr. Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3-billion in 2028-29, compared with $68.7-billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. Oh well.
Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney's election win already has economists worried — National Post
Canada was already headed into a recession. Then, on Tuesday, Fitch Ratings warned that Carney's deficit plan could harm our credit rating
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: operating and capital. Government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces and to individual Canadians (e.g., Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will count as capital. The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 but fund increased spending within the capital budget with more borrowing.
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” In reality, it will muddy the waters, making it harder to evaluate the true state of federal finances.
Opinion: Carney’s accounting change reduces transparency, accountability
If borrowing is fine for spending that goes into the capital account, pretty soon all spending will be categorized as capital. Find out more
The budget should be separated this way. Under no circumstances should there ever be borrowing for the operating budget. The catch, with the liberal history is exactly what will go into the Capital Budget?
Say the feds decide to build a pipeline. The cost of land acquisition, leasing should be in the Capital Budget. Grants to ecoterrorist groups to fight the pipeline would be operating budget.
Tax money given to companies to build new facilities is Operating Budget, not Capital Budget, unless the government has an equity position.
Say the feds decide to build a pipeline. The cost of land acquisition, leasing should be in the Capital Budget. Grants to ecoterrorist groups to fight the pipeline would be operating budget.
Tax money given to companies to build new facilities is Operating Budget, not Capital Budget, unless the government has an equity position.
Green shit requires a different type of funding. It's gotta be up front. Govt doesn't earn directly from a project.The Liberals won the federal election on Monday partly as a result of the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to his fiscal plan, he doesn’t think his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was spending and borrowing enough.
View attachment 29031
To recap, the Trudeau Liberal government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1-trillion in debt and recorded the six highest-spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023. Last fall, it projected large deficits (and $400-billion in additional debt) over the next four years, including a $42.2-billion deficit this fiscal year.Opinion: Hey big spender Mark Carney, poised for economic and fiscal disaster — The Globe and Mail
This year’s deficit will increase to $62.4-billion. Combined deficits over the subsequent years will be $67.7-billion higher than under Justin Trudeau
By contrast, under Mr. Carney’s Liberal plan, this year’s deficit is set to increase to a projected $62.4-billion. The combined deficits over the subsequent three years is expected to be $67.7-billion higher than under Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal plan. Consequently, the federal debt and associated interest costs will rise sharply.
Under Mr. Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3-billion in 2028-29, compared with $68.7-billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. Oh well.
All Canadians should care about government transparency. The federal government should provide timely and comprehensible reporting on its finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. But the Carney government’s new spending framework — which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget — will instead reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney's election win already has economists worried — National Post
Canada was already headed into a recession. Then, on Tuesday, Fitch Ratings warned that Carney's deficit plan could harm our credit rating
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: operating and capital. Government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces and to individual Canadians (e.g., Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will count as capital. The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 but fund increased spending within the capital budget with more borrowing.
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” In reality, it will muddy the waters, making it harder to evaluate the true state of federal finances.
Opinion: Carney’s accounting change reduces transparency, accountability
If borrowing is fine for spending that goes into the capital account, pretty soon all spending will be categorized as capital. Find out more
We're aboot to see weird energy partnerships where Amazon will be competing with Meta to sell you energy. Why on earth would they keep buying electricity when they can produce and sell electricity?
He's dangerous for Canada. "Mark" my words!!The Liberals won the federal election on Monday partly as a result of the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to his fiscal plan, he doesn’t think his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was spending and borrowing enough.
View attachment 29031
To recap, the Trudeau Liberal government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1-trillion in debt and recorded the six highest-spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023. Last fall, it projected large deficits (and $400-billion in additional debt) over the next four years, including a $42.2-billion deficit this fiscal year.Opinion: Hey big spender Mark Carney, poised for economic and fiscal disaster — The Globe and Mail
This year’s deficit will increase to $62.4-billion. Combined deficits over the subsequent years will be $67.7-billion higher than under Justin Trudeau
By contrast, under Mr. Carney’s Liberal plan, this year’s deficit is set to increase to a projected $62.4-billion. The combined deficits over the subsequent three years is expected to be $67.7-billion higher than under Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal plan. Consequently, the federal debt and associated interest costs will rise sharply.
Under Mr. Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3-billion in 2028-29, compared with $68.7-billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. Oh well.
All Canadians should care about government transparency. The federal government should provide timely and comprehensible reporting on its finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. But the Carney government’s new spending framework — which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget — will instead reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney's election win already has economists worried — National Post
Canada was already headed into a recession. Then, on Tuesday, Fitch Ratings warned that Carney's deficit plan could harm our credit rating
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: operating and capital. Government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces and to individual Canadians (e.g., Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will count as capital. The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 but fund increased spending within the capital budget with more borrowing.
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” In reality, it will muddy the waters, making it harder to evaluate the true state of federal finances.
Opinion: Carney’s accounting change reduces transparency, accountability
If borrowing is fine for spending that goes into the capital account, pretty soon all spending will be categorized as capital. Find out more
We all know budgets balance themselves.The Liberals won the federal election on Monday partly as a result of the perception that Prime Minister Mark Carney will move his government back to the political centre and be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. But in fact, according to his fiscal plan, he doesn’t think his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was spending and borrowing enough.
View attachment 29031
To recap, the Trudeau Liberal government recorded 10 consecutive budget deficits, racked up $1.1-trillion in debt and recorded the six highest-spending years (per person, adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2023. Last fall, it projected large deficits (and $400-billion in additional debt) over the next four years, including a $42.2-billion deficit this fiscal year.Opinion: Hey big spender Mark Carney, poised for economic and fiscal disaster — The Globe and Mail
This year’s deficit will increase to $62.4-billion. Combined deficits over the subsequent years will be $67.7-billion higher than under Justin Trudeau
By contrast, under Mr. Carney’s Liberal plan, this year’s deficit is set to increase to a projected $62.4-billion. The combined deficits over the subsequent three years is expected to be $67.7-billion higher than under Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal plan. Consequently, the federal debt and associated interest costs will rise sharply.
Under Mr. Trudeau’s plan, federal debt interest would have reached a projected $66.3-billion in 2028-29, compared with $68.7-billion under the new Carney plan. That’s roughly equivalent to what the government will spend on employment insurance (EI), the Canada Child Benefit and $10-a-day daycare combined. Oh well.
All Canadians should care about government transparency. The federal government should provide timely and comprehensible reporting on its finances so Canadians know whether the government is staying true to its promises. But the Carney government’s new spending framework — which increases complexity and ambiguity in the federal budget — will instead reduce transparency and make it harder for Canadians to hold the government accountable.Jamie Sarkonak: Mark Carney's election win already has economists worried — National Post
Canada was already headed into a recession. Then, on Tuesday, Fitch Ratings warned that Carney's deficit plan could harm our credit rating
The government plans to separate federal spending into two budgets: operating and capital. Government salaries, cash transfers to the provinces and to individual Canadians (e.g., Old Age Security) will fall within the operating budget, while spending on “anything that builds an asset” will count as capital. The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 but fund increased spending within the capital budget with more borrowing.
According to the Liberal Party platform, this accounting change will “create a more transparent categorization of the expenditure that contributes to capital formation in Canada.” In reality, it will muddy the waters, making it harder to evaluate the true state of federal finances.
Opinion: Carney’s accounting change reduces transparency, accountability
If borrowing is fine for spending that goes into the capital account, pretty soon all spending will be categorized as capital. Find out more
Catastrophic would be the "Great White Combine" and the headaches of hail insurance.