[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

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!

Do all disasters require precisely 3 billion dollars to clean up from?

If that time comes and the fund still sits at only a billion and we need more, we can borrow it then.

[Canadian_Mind]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

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!

Do all disasters require precisely 3 billion dollars to clean up from?

If that time comes and the fund still sits at only a billion and we need more, we can borrow it then.

IIRC Calgary floods cost over 5 billion dollars. If a disaster of similar scale happens again any time soon, the country will have to borrow money and go into a deficit to pay for it.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

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!

Do all disasters require precisely 3 billion dollars to clean up from?

If that time comes and the fund still sits at only a billion and we need more, we can borrow it then.

And that was the theme of my 'what if' game. Is it cheaper to add $600m to the $1.2 trillion debt we already have, or borrow an extra $2B to cover costs in the event of a natural disaster?

Why does it always take 2 pages to explain these things to you?

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And that was the theme of my 'what if' game. Is it cheaper to add $600m to the $1.2 trillion debt we already have, or borrow an extra $2B to cover costs in the event of a natural disaster?

Why does it always take 2 pages to explain these things to you?

Because you explain things terribly.

You make points where only you understand the context. If you form some context around your point, as you did above, it makes for far better conversation.

Your above post also confirms what I mean in terms of clarity and context. You've made reference above to a "what if" game when your initial post on the issue was anything but, "what if".

$1:

It would have been better to take a $600m deficit,

[Canadian_Mind]

OTI, while you make a point that Caleb could be more clear when he is explaining things (you really do need to add context Dr.), it's a strawman argument.

Do you think it is worth it to dip heavily into the contingency fund in order to prevent a deficit, at risk of having to borrow money if the remaining fund isn't enough?

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Your above post also confirms what I mean in terms of clarity and context. You've made reference above to a "what if" game when your initial post on the issue was anything but, "what if".

$1:

It would have been better to take a $600m deficit,

And if you had quoted the correct statement of mine, it might have not led to your confusion. I said the same thing twice, and my first 5 posts had nothing to do with borrowing $2B.

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.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Is it cheaper to add $600m to the $1.2 trillion debt we already have, or borrow an extra $2B to cover costs in the event of a natural disaster?

Why does it always take 2 pages to explain these things to you?

[DrCaleb]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

(you really do need to add context Dr.)

Appreciate the advice. I don't always mean a reply in the context of the whole thread, just in the context of what I quote. I'll try to be a little more reliant on my 'outside voice'.

[Thanos]

As far as pre-election stunt booking goes, this particular debt/surplus one is pretty lame. It does nothing for me at all so I have no reason to vote Tory because of it. Won't vote for any of the others either, but there's nothing in this budget for me that's going to make me rush off to the polling station like a good little drone. I'm out of the loop of nonsense elections, probably altogether and permanently. Should have been a lot more me-me-me during my life. Wouldn't have gotten into such a mess if I'd been a lot more selfish and been smart enough not to put any value at all on this bogus Care Bears caring-and-sharing schtick that the politicians, media, and other assorted asshole propagandists in this country have mythologized into being the most important aspect of Canadian citizenship.

[andyt]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

OTI, while you make a point that Caleb could be more clear when he is explaining things (you really do need to add context Dr.), it's a strawman argument.

Do you think it is worth it to dip heavily into the contingency fund in order to prevent a deficit, at risk of having to borrow money if the remaining fund isn't enough?

Actually it would seem logical to not have a contingency fund at all if that means adding to the deficit. Borrow the money when needed, not earlier. Same with if there is a surplus - pay down the debt, then borrow if needed. Of course this all works only if borrowing costs are the same - ie it doesn't cost more to borrow on short term notice.

What's being lost in all this is that the budget is only a projection of expected revenues and expenses. Nobody can say how accurate it is. In September the actual financial reports come out, that show how closely the projected budget of the last year hewed to reality. Nobody pays attention to those figures, which are much more important. The media complains that the budget is a political document but then plays right along giving it max coverage, while ignoring the fiscal reality. It would be much more interesting to read how closely the budget of the year matched the actual books.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

What's being lost in all this is that the budget is only a projection of expected revenues and expenses. Nobody can say how accurate it is. In September the actual financial reports come out, that show how closely the projected budget of the last year hewed to reality. Nobody pays attention to those figures, which are much more important. The media complains that the budget is a political document but then plays right along giving it max coverage, while ignoring the fiscal reality. It would be much more interesting to read how closely the budget of the year matched the actual books.

An excellent point! I used to look at these numbers, but the accuracy has changed recently. Now they can be very vague. They used to post things like how much a department spent on computer consulting, or on employee expense claims. But around 2009 they got less granular, and now it's just all lump categories and rounded to the nearest million.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But around 2009 they got less granular, and now it's just all lump categories and rounded to the nearest million.

Personally I only want the lump sum categories presented to me by the media. I understand someone's level of interest going deeper than that, but to me that's all I want to learn. I know about the fiscal report only from a media person who commented on it and the lack of coverage, but I don't see him taking time to report it either. The day the actual books come out should be covered with similar fervor and discussion to the budget. We talk about the budget having a slight surplus, but we won't really know if there was an actual surplus or deficit until september of next year.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But around 2009 they got less granular, and now it's just all lump categories and rounded to the nearest million.

Personally I only want the lump sum categories presented to me by the media. I understand someone's level of interest going deeper than that, but to me that's all I want to learn. I know about the fiscal report only from a media person who commented on it and the lack of coverage, but I don't see him taking time to report it either. The day the actual books come out should be covered with similar fervor and discussion to the budget. We talk about the budget having a slight surplus, but we won't really know if there was an actual surplus or deficit until september of next year.

With that level of granularity, you could see departments shuffling things around. You could know that if Employee pay decreased significantly and Contractor pay rose sharply that they had laid a bunch of people off to appear to be cutting costs, even though it cost more to hire them back as consultants to do exactly the same work. Things like getting rid of cleaning staff and contracting it out, or even spending more on the 'free' coffee in the break rooms became evident.

In a way I'm glad it's not there anymore. Reduces my stress level.

[DrCaleb]

The reason they don't carry that information is directly related to other things I've been trying to highlight, like the demise of the long form census.

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26

This table, for example, has a little (T) beside every data point because Stats Can no longer tracks data for that anymore. The big question is . . why?

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economic ... nada-data/

[OnTheIce]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

OTI, while you make a point that Caleb could be more clear when he is explaining things (you really do need to add context Dr.), it's a strawman argument.

Do you think it is worth it to dip heavily into the contingency fund in order to prevent a deficit, at risk of having to borrow money if the remaining fund isn't enough?

Yes, I do.

I'd rather take the risk of having to borrow money than having to actually borrow money.

I also run my personal finances much the same. I don't save money in the traditional sense. I don't have a rainy day fund.

I invest money and dip into credit in the chance of an emergency.

[smorgdonkey]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I always love to hear people talk/write about the deficit like it had no purpose, no cause and no reason behind it.

I always love to hear Con supporters talk/write about the Cons like nothing is the Cons' responsibility.


Anyone who can't see that the Cretien and Martin governments were far superior to the crap that we have now needs to be strapped into a chair and fed pablum.