CanucksCorner.com Forums

dangler wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 10:21 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 7:57 am

dangler wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 7:21 am As of March 31, 2024, Canada's federal debt was $1,236.2 billion, which is 42.1% of the country's GDP.

What was the deficit each year?

'16 -'17 it was $40.2 B
'23 - '24 it was$69.5B (73% increase)
Trudeau added 108,793 bureaucrats since '16
a 42% increase compared to a 14% population increase
even if PP gets elected he'll have a hard time unfucking everything

Is there a list of it every year? Random data points are not that useful compared to the whole data set.

Lol.

Talk about devolution...the discussion has become about whose resume is bigger than the next guy.

Well....

I'm Arthur Brown.

I win.

Madcombinepilot wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:58 am

rikster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:03 am

BCExpat wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 8:30 am The more I listen to Carney, the more I'm convinced he is a lying sack of shit and would send this country even further down the road to ruin. He can't and shouldn't be trusted.

So the life long politician with zero experience in the real world is the person you think is best able to tackle the major crisisis facing Canada?

And what has he accomplished while in Government?

There is no record to attack because he hasn't done anything of note...

What roles did Stephen Harper give him when he was Prime Minister?

As for the Philip Cross video someone posted, that is suppose to disqualify Carney? I watched it and came away with the opposite view...

Second guessing the work of someone in very senior positions, especially if they dealt with crisis is what some people like to do...

The bigger worry is when someone has never been is a senior position and therefore has never had to deal with a crisis...

The moment is too big with too much to lose to turn the office of Prime Minister over to such an unacomplished person as PP when you have the experience of Carney willing to take on the challenges...

Really shouldn't be a hard decsion to make...

… was this a troll post?!?


I remember the good old days.. when a single scandal would topple a government. Now, we have one every few months and nobody blinks. Corruption runs rampant and more debt has been racked up with the current Liberal government than combined in our history, but hey! They can change it all with a new leader and a new set of lies!

(Drinks more KoolAid)

Care to share some examples of those good old days?

Hate to call out Mr Harper, but these are some of the scandals that plagued his Government, of which PP was a member...Maybe by your logic PP should be prevented from running for Prime Minister given that he himself was involved in a scandal while a member of Harpers government?

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/10/H ... wer-Final/

Broke my heart when he lost in 2015 to a drama teacher but the country was upset over the many scandals and things like affordability and the costs of housing....

I guess there were some governments which ended scandal free but unfortunately they go back to John A Macdonald who resigned after being caught accepting a bride, only 5 years later he became Prime Minister again for 13 years so even back then scandals didn't prevent you from running government...

Tciso wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:41 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 9:46 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 8:01 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:30 pm In other words you're just talking out of your rear end which is fine, but when you start accusing someone of being a weasel because you lack the ability to understand financial concepts then maybe you should listen more and talk less...

Please explain. I have given a solid reason why splitting spending, debt and deficits into different categories is dumb, and misleading. Feel free to provide a counter argument that supports your point.

Your beef is with GAAP and the Financial Accounting Standards Board so you should take up your concern with them....

So, I’ll assume you are a qualified CPA/CMA up to date on the various differences in the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles between individuals, small businesses, limited partnerships, corporations, and all levels of governments, and can explain the differences for us?

But, whatever that answer is, it also does not change the fact that there are no practical benefits to separating the operating budget from the capital budget, compared to leaving it as it currently is. If there are any benefits, I would like to know, as I can see none.

The information used to build the current budget is broken down in fine detail and in multitudes of categories, including capital projects. The current budget already supports tracking capital projects, including expenditures and debts at the same level that tracking them separately would.

As a negative, the government can claim any milestone they want on the operating budget side that is completely devoid of reality by simply hiding more debt in the operating budget. There are no mortgages when it comes to federal debt. And, the payment of that debt is also not compulsory, allowing it to grow unabated, all while the government claims all is well since the operating budget is doing well. Bye Bye $60billion deficits on the news. And we lose another level of accountability.


In my opinion, Carney has a terrible record for the last 5 years. He has been a financial advisor to Trudeau and Freeland. So, he was either listened to by those 2, and his advise has a lot of responsibility for the economics of the past 5 years; or he was ignored for 5 years, but kept quiet, and even cheered as they did what Carney knew was wrong.

I don’t think he can handle the power of having 2 budgets given his history with corporations, and their ability to hide monies all around the world, including using Canada’s banking system. I am not implying any negative morality of Carney. I don’t think that any politician should have that ability .

By the way, if you are having doubts, go google the Canadian annual deficits for the past 25 years. See if the data supports me.

Pretty simple for me...reading a financial statement is like reading a book which tells a story about the business filing its report ...Doesn't matter if its a SP or a limited company or a government...

Breaking out long term debt on a balance sheet with the current debt showing on the p&l shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and certainly not a suggestion that should cause someone to accuse the person of being a wiesel...

Regardless, what you and the others supporting PP aren't doing is explaining why you think he is qualified to do a better job than Carney can, or for that matter make a smaller mess than JT did...

rikster wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:41 pm
Pretty simple for me...reading a financial statement is like reading a book which tells a story about the business filing its report ...Doesn't matter if its a SP or a limited company or a government...

Breaking out long term debt on a balance sheet with the current debt showing on the p&l shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and certainly not a suggestion that should cause someone to accuse the person of being a wiesel...

Regardless, what you and the others supporting PP aren't doing is explaining why you think he is qualified to do a better job than Carney can, or for that matter make a smaller mess than JT did...

So, what is the benefit of splitting the books, when the consolidated financial statement can easily be read by you, and broken down into operating and capital all ready? Seriously, what benefit does it provide to the average Canadian, the government, or even the media?

The weasle part comes from the history of many other governments that have done the same as Carney has proposed, and the results have been horrible every time. It does not help that the media is unable to read a financial statement, and does a terible job of reporting on it accurately.

Additional weasle activities include claiming to drop the carbon tax on individuals, hiking it on corporations, and then claiming it will be better for the average person, since they don't like the current tax, and won't be paying his new tax. But the corporations will either pass the costs along to consumers, or go out of business since they will be even more non-competative compared to the rest of the world. If that statement is not true, please explain the falsehoods.

More weasle words from Carney also include his claims of righting all the wrongs done by the Liberals, while keeping the same group of MPs, and advisors that have been responsible for the past 9 years without showing how they will be different.

Regarding PP, I have no idea if he is ready. I also don't really care, as the Liberals have done such a terrible job. But, PP has identified many of the problems, and has also produced policy statements that address these issues in ways that don't violate the basic tennants of math or economics. How well they get implemented is a different issue, but at least PP has a full plan, and has not been a last minute convert to economic reality that Carney has become. Looking at PPs qualifications, he has been the Parliamentry Secretary, and in cabinet before. He has been a shadow minister before. His record as an MP is long. His experience as an MP and a leader is also long. Those are all qualifications for being Prime MInister. And, they are as good as Carney's qualifications. Both have different qualifications, but both are qualified.


And regarding making a smaller mess than JT, well, if the next Prime Minister, regardless of the party, makes as much of a mess as Trudeau has, we will be totally FUBAR.

Tciso be like:



I think the liberal party of Canada is probably a decade or longer away from being relevant again thanks to the catastrophic fuckup Turdo, Carnie and the rest of these fuckwits have created of our beautiful country

rikster wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 12:41 pm

Tciso wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:41 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 9:46 am

Tciso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 8:01 pm

rikster wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2025 7:30 pm In other words you're just talking out of your rear end which is fine, but when you start accusing someone of being a weasel because you lack the ability to understand financial concepts then maybe you should listen more and talk less...

Please explain. I have given a solid reason why splitting spending, debt and deficits into different categories is dumb, and misleading. Feel free to provide a counter argument that supports your point.

Your beef is with GAAP and the Financial Accounting Standards Board so you should take up your concern with them....

So, I’ll assume you are a qualified CPA/CMA up to date on the various differences in the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles between individuals, small businesses, limited partnerships, corporations, and all levels of governments, and can explain the differences for us?

But, whatever that answer is, it also does not change the fact that there are no practical benefits to separating the operating budget from the capital budget, compared to leaving it as it currently is. If there are any benefits, I would like to know, as I can see none.

The information used to build the current budget is broken down in fine detail and in multitudes of categories, including capital projects. The current budget already supports tracking capital projects, including expenditures and debts at the same level that tracking them separately would.

As a negative, the government can claim any milestone they want on the operating budget side that is completely devoid of reality by simply hiding more debt in the operating budget. There are no mortgages when it comes to federal debt. And, the payment of that debt is also not compulsory, allowing it to grow unabated, all while the government claims all is well since the operating budget is doing well. Bye Bye $60billion deficits on the news. And we lose another level of accountability.


In my opinion, Carney has a terrible record for the last 5 years. He has been a financial advisor to Trudeau and Freeland. So, he was either listened to by those 2, and his advise has a lot of responsibility for the economics of the past 5 years; or he was ignored for 5 years, but kept quiet, and even cheered as they did what Carney knew was wrong.

I don’t think he can handle the power of having 2 budgets given his history with corporations, and their ability to hide monies all around the world, including using Canada’s banking system. I am not implying any negative morality of Carney. I don’t think that any politician should have that ability .

By the way, if you are having doubts, go google the Canadian annual deficits for the past 25 years. See if the data supports me.

Pretty simple for me...reading a financial statement is like reading a book which tells a story about the business filing its report ...Doesn't matter if its a SP or a limited company or a government...

Breaking out long term debt on a balance sheet with the current debt showing on the p&l shouldn't be that hard to grasp, and certainly not a suggestion that should cause someone to accuse the person of being a wiesel...

Regardless, what you and the others supporting PP aren't doing is explaining why you think he is qualified to do a better job than Carney can, or for that matter make a smaller mess than JT did...

I like what PP says he is going to do. I guess we'll see how many of those things he can actually get done if he gets in. It has nothing to do with qualifications. You seem to be stuck on that for some reason, when you are missing the point that it is policy that should dictate how you vote - not how many degrees the leader has. PP will have plenty of advisors who are very qualified, so his personal qualifications aren't as important to me as what he stands for. As I said, Carney is a lying sack of shit and isn't someone I trust.

Fuck carney
Fuck the liberal party…

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 2:23 pm Tciso be like:



I think the liberal party of Canada is probably a decade or longer away from being relevant again thanks to the catastrophic fuckup Turdo, Carnie and the rest of these fuckwits have created of our beautiful country

I have no faith in Ontario for that.

Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 3:23 pm

Cousin Strawberry wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2025 2:23 pm Tciso be like:



I think the liberal party of Canada is probably a decade or longer away from being relevant again thanks to the catastrophic fuckup Turdo, Carnie and the rest of these fuckwits have created of our beautiful country

I have no faith in Ontario for that.

It should be a slam dunk, but I'm still hearing alot of Liberal support which I suspect is from the left leaning media and people aligning PP with Trump.

Is anything actual said in this clip?

https://x.com/junonewscom/status/1892311499114238429

I can use big words like cardboardbox. See.

"MacD", because I'm a hockey goalie.

I like what PP says he is going to do. I guess we'll see how many of those things he can actually get done if he gets in. It has nothing to do with qualifications. You seem to be stuck on that for some reason, when you are missing the point that it is policy that should dictate how you vote - not how many degrees the leader has. PP will have plenty of advisors who are very qualified, so his personal qualifications aren't as important to me as what he stands for. As I said, Carney is a lying sack of shit and isn't someone I trust.

Did you forget Poilievre trying to pin the oil price collapse of 2014 on Trudeau who wasn't elected until November of 2015?

Or his other issues with the truth?

If lying is a river too wide for you at least be consistant...

For someone who has been in Government since 2004, PP has accomplished pretty much squat which is remarkable in itself...maybe we should get DOGE to issue a letter demanding he explain what he has done of significance over the last nearly 21 years...

Think he'd keep his job?

I don't share your optimism with the Conservative Shadow Government, if anything it is woefully inept and wonder if you've taken the time to look at it?...

btw the website is broken and hard to navigate, makes you wonder if they can't manage a web site how will they manage the country?

Resume's are critical, especially when you have someone who has experience navigating thru multiple crisis similar to the one facing Canada today...

Who do you want at the table negotiating trade agreements and ways countries can work together to combat America's attack on Canada? Someone who has a relationship with most of the leaders or a raw rookie?

As for his campaign pledges, they are elementary school stuff and lack any depth...

Carney's resume is one of money printing.

Carney has a great resume when it comes to having had experience with finances and financial crises. Looking closely one can also see that his decisions during those times shows that he advocates for bad choices at critical times.

Nobody is arguing that he doesn’t have experience. The point is that he will make things worse, and for long term, rather than improve them.

Nobody is arguing that he doesn’t have experience. The point is that he will make things worse, and for long term, rather than improve them.

I’d be curious to hear some examples?

Some have said that he and Harper were lucky to steer the Canadian economy thru the 2008 financial crisis in a way that stood out against the other G countries;

https://macleans.ca/economy/business/st ... ust-lucky/

While being unsuccessful in stopping Brexit as the governor of the Bank of England, history has shown that he was correct…

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 75539.html

What about his chair at Brookfield and its $800 billion in assets under management? Surely they don’t agree with you?

Carney has many fans and some critiques because he has played the games at the very highest level while on the other hand PP has been a waterboy by comparison.

He hasn’t played a game and never held a senior post in the Harper government although that didn’t stop him from being slapped and criticized for a number of mistakes and poor judgment to the point that he thought of leaving politics at one time…

[Mod Edit: Take Care]