[CDN_PATRIOT]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Won't matter much as these guys will be gone in October anyways.

-J.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

That said, the Conservatives basically cheated to balance the budget. Raise the fucking GST back to 7% and your budget will be square.

Yep - if they hadn't drawn $2 billion from the contingency fund, they would actually have run a deficit.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Usually, but not always. They didn't work for McCain. The orthodox wisdom is that attack ads work and young people don't vote. Both of those backfired. The key is a grassroots organziation to get the young vote out. They are more motivated towards the Liberals/NDP/Green than the older demographic, but you need an effective grassroots campaign to get them vote, and that ain't easy.

McCain? What Country do you live in?

Canadian political parties have been doing attack ads forever and they're quite effective. What happens South of the border is irrelevant.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

That said, the Conservatives basically cheated to balance the budget. Raise the fucking GST back to 7% and your budget will be square.

Yep - if they hadn't drawn $2 billion from the contingency fund, they would actually have run a deficit.

So it would be wise to borrow 2 billion when we have 2 billion?

When you have a savings account and you need a new roof on your house, do you pay for it with credit or use the money you have in the bank?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

That said, the Conservatives basically cheated to balance the budget. Raise the fucking GST back to 7% and your budget will be square.

Yep - if they hadn't drawn $2 billion from the contingency fund, they would actually have run a deficit.

So it would be wise to borrow 2 billion when we have 2 billion?

When you have a savings account and you need a new roof on your house, do you pay for it with credit or use the money you have in the bank?

We wouldn't have had to borrow $2B because there is a calculated $1.4B surplus. It would have been better to take a $600m deficit, and leave the contingency fund alone. But that's bad politics in an election year.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We wouldn't have had to borrow $2B because there is a calculated $1.4B surplus. It would have been better to take a $600m deficit, and leave the contingency fund alone. But that's bad politics in an election year.

So we'd borrow $600 million when we have 3 billion in the bank?

[Canadian_Mind]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And many people are disappointed with the Conservatvies and Harper as well.

yes they are me included......but not enough to vote for a party with an ineffective leader who's mandate will be governed by the old school backroom boys.

x2

I think when the Liberals deliver a competent leader that fits in the "Blue Liberal" or "small l" catagory, Harper will suffer a landslide defeat. Not quite on par with '93, but they may be in the same boat the Liberals are now.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We wouldn't have had to borrow $2B because there is a calculated $1.4B surplus. It would have been better to take a $600m deficit, and leave the contingency fund alone. But that's bad politics in an election year.

So we'd borrow $600 million when we have 3 billion in the bank?

We could. It would be a drop in the debt bucket. But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We could. It would be a drop in the debt bucket. But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

It doesn't make sense to borrow money when you have the money in the bank.

When you take money you already have, it's not borrowing.

It's just moving money from one account to another.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We could. It would be a drop in the debt bucket. But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

It doesn't make sense to borrow money when you have the money in the bank.

Actually, sometimes it does, even for the average person.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

We could. It would be a drop in the debt bucket. But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

It doesn't make sense to borrow money when you have the money in the bank.

When you take money you already have, it's not borrowing.

It's just moving money from one account to another.

It does make sense if it costs less to borrow the $600m on things to be delivered in 2017 - 2019, rather than borrow $2B to cover disasters this year that the contingency fund is supposed to be used for. In the mean time, the $3B contingency fund can earn interest and help to reduce that $600m bill, in the event the budget is ever passed in Parliament.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It does make sense if it costs less to borrow the $600m on things to be delivered in 2017 - 2019, rather than borrow $2B to cover disasters this year that the contingency fund is supposed to be used for. In the mean time, the $3B contingency fund can earn interest and help to reduce that $600m bill, in the event the budget is ever passed in Parliament.

They're not borrowing 2 billion.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Actually, sometimes it does, even for the average person.

True. If you're getting the money at 0% or close to, it may make sense.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It does make sense if it costs less to borrow the $600m on things to be delivered in 2017 - 2019, rather than borrow $2B to cover disasters this year that the contingency fund is supposed to be used for. In the mean time, the $3B contingency fund can earn interest and help to reduce that $600m bill, in the event the budget is ever passed in Parliament.

They're not borrowing 2 billion.

I didn't say they were.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It does make sense if it costs less to borrow the $600m on things to be delivered in 2017 - 2019, rather than borrow $2B to cover disasters this year that the contingency fund is supposed to be used for. In the mean time, the $3B contingency fund can earn interest and help to reduce that $600m bill, in the event the budget is ever passed in Parliament.

They're not borrowing 2 billion.

I didn't say they were.

$1:

But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

They're not borrowing 2 billion.

I didn't say they were.

$1:

But we wouldn't have to borrow $2B to cover a $600m deficit to make it look like a $1.4B surplus.

So, in the event of a natural disaster, they aren't going to repay the $2B taken from the contingency fund? Frank Underwood would be proud!