As I listed above, there are many countries that budget like this.
Nothing new.
How would you know if the operational side is balanced already if it is not separated?
This method will bring the transparency you seek by categorizing OPEX and CAPEX.
Carney’s accounting change reduces transparency, accountability
- Thread starter DesRicardo
- Start date
Nothing new.
How would you know if the operational side is balanced already if it is not separated?
This method will bring the transparency you seek by categorizing OPEX and CAPEX.
I said it very well might be, unless you view anything done in the past by the Liberals should not have been viewed as an investment, since nothing they did help Canada on a forward looking basis. Carney will probably capitalize all the immigration costs, since he will view that as an investment in labour. There is a good reason for governments do not to separate the two, since investments are arbitary and end of day they both still contribute to running up the debt, which the Liberals have proven that to be their best attribute over the last 10 years.
The Trudeau government made several major investments in housing, infrastructure and energy which did yield immense benefits.
So the statement that nothing they did helped Canada, is untrue.
If Carney capitalizes immigration, which he hasn't said he would, it wouldn't be a gimmick either.
Immigration is of immense economic value for Canada, so it would indeed be an investment for the future.
As I said in my previous post, there are many governments that do separate the two.
Investments may run up the debt, but debt is not always bad, especially when the investment is needed for Canada to grow.
Exactly. It's already balanced. Carney worked in Private Equity, he can balance this in a month. He doesn't need 3 years to balance Operating expenses.
And since it's his standards, who's to say it's not balanced? Canada is filled with sheep.
This is so crooked it's evil.
How do you know?
Do you have any evidence of this?
By the way if it is already balanced, are you saying that the Liberals have done a great job and been fiscally responsible?
Separate categories in a budget.
What's the problem?
There is no way to say yes or no. It's whatever Carney tells you.
Hell, you can take all Gov revenue and put it on Op expenses. Then move some Op expenses to Cap investments. Who’s to say that's wrong or right? If you can't see the flaw, there's no point talking.
What matters is the debt and no they are not doing a good job.
Last edited:
I still remember Justin telling us that 8 out 10 households were benefiting from the carbon tax, lol.
Carney is going to get up in the house and spew the same massaged numbers and reasoning as applied to the budget.
That's the way it is now.
What Carney proposed is separating them from your own post.
Wow, you don't really be your own comment about immigration! If you do, you need to check yourself into the nearest mental institution.
As to investments, yes the housing investment has helped immensely, and why Canada has a housing crisis.
And as to infrastructure, about the only thing I have seen is this big hole in the ground in front of parliament, which has been ongoing for several years, with no clear results and frankly what value added it is going to be, isn't obvious, likely none. I wonder the price tag on that. I suspect the investment in "We" was of more value. And all that investment has added almost zero on a per capita GDP basis over 10 years, just spectacular growth.
You cannot put revenue in expenses. lmfao.
That's not how accounting works and the federal government, whether conservative or liberal aren't going to do that.
And there are definitions of what are operating expenses and what are cap investments.
While I can see how they may be fungible to some extent, blatant manipulation isn't allowed per accounting standards the government follows.
And how is it worse than not separating them at all where you cannot tell one from the other and the lies you insinuate are made more probable?
That isn't a response.
Why dont you explain why immigration cannot be considered an investment.
And sure investments were made and more are needed.
Hence Carney's platform.
Nobody here has been able to articulate what is actually wrong with Carney's platform.
Give it a rest, Des, not only are you way out of your league here, but you are also so hopelessly lost, dazed and confused that it is becoming pityingly cringy trying to make any semblance of your nonsense.
Bro, seriously shaking my head in disbelief.
Bro, seriously shaking my head in disbelief.
What's wrong with his platform. Several of those were from the conservatives.
However many of the others are just going to push Canada further down the food chain in terms of prosperity. Zero carbon, this will hurt, especially since it goes against Canada's natural strengths. The housing initiative has been part of the Liberal platform and they have failed, so no trust on that one. The defence spending is hard to disagree with, since Canada has been derelict in its NATO commitments for too long, which is part of what the US saying, that Canada has relied on the US for its protection, rather than being its own sovereign protector. This isn't going to help Canada get better. They are also going to protect certain industries in any trade deal (good luck) and are going to invest in technologies to improve Canada's ability to independently grow products it consumes, but can't produce adequately (another good luck). Their biggest new spending is taxation, both reducing the lowest bracket and not implementing the capital gains tax that was planned. This won't help much either, but the capital gains tax had a negative risk, which is just being abated. In reality, Carney should have said he was offsetting this by raising either the top bracket or adding a new bracket. In the end, he may, wouldn't surprise me, but he wasn't going to run on that. His government efficiencies aren’t clear, and it may be more of lack of further growth than austerity measures. I would have been happy with a 1990s style austerity initiative, since the government is so big and inefficient it is brutal. I can cite my ongoing experience with CRA that must consume a month or more of their time each year, for basically something that should be automatic. And if there are 10,000 Canadians with a similar experience, that alone is about 800 staff years of inefficiency. For a single issue. And I have provided several suggestions to improve this, but this is above all these people's pay grades.
End of day, I wanted a government that was going to be clearly fiscally prudent (although not convinced the conservatives would have been either, but a better chance), would be more willing to leverage our natural resources, would encourage investment privately by reducing red tape and would not be beholden to the WEF and the globalists. The Liberals are none of these. And after 10 years of incompetency, rewarding the Liberals with another term is pure insanity. But they changed leaders (although to the one giving economic advice) and told Canadians that Trump was an existential threat and Poilieve was surely a mini-Trump. Basically propaganda, but it worked, the NDP supporters all move to Liberal and many Liberal exitors returned.
So you are saying Carney is a liar?
-At the same time, we will bring revenues in line with total operating spending and eliminate this gap — currently estimated at about $15 billion a year — by Budget 2028.
I almost feel bad for you the way you are looking in this thread. Almost.
lmfao.
Are you saying your understanding of the sentence "We will bring revenues in line with total operating spending" is, that revenue is accounted for as expense on the balance sheet?
C'mon, you must be putting me on now.
If not, you should be more worried about how you are looking in this thread. lmao.
Where in that Carney platform statement does it specifically say Balance Sheet?
You realize that a financial report requires a balance sheet right?
Its called the consolidated statement of revenues and expenses in government parlance.
So you tried lied on me. Why?
You such a dishonourable peice of something.
