Former PBO questions interim twit
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Looks like someone is campaigning for a new Carney henchman position.
This type of political intimidation should be outlawed. What type of country do we have where you can't question or oppose the government?
This type of political intimidation should be outlawed. What type of country do we have where you can't question or oppose the government?
The PBO is appointed by the PM, ONCE YOU ARE APPOINTED then you serve the term. To say this nonsense so early probably means he was told he is not getting the job so he decided to piss on the govt. In fact because the PM appointed him 6m interim means he KNOWS he will not get the job.
Or maybe he has integrity and is telling the truth.
It’s his job to provide an analysis and I don’t think he was out of bounds in anyway. Especially when Carney was given no details on what to expect.
How is it Carney can hire his corporate friends but can’t appoint a Pom? How is this acceptable?
Based on the proof points he isn't. the debt levels vs peers is stll low, so the PMs plan to cut OPEX and focus on CAPEX is a very rational direction. Of course PP only has had a govt job so he would not understand the difference
like a drug addict there is no way to convince you you're are out of control.
How is he not based on proof. You are so biased. Canada has the the lowest population compared to other G7, plus every notion structures debt differently. This is why he basically said "I'm am the PBO for Canada, not any other nation. (I'm paraphrasing but same idea)
And Carney can split OPEX and CAPEX all he wants, the PMO answered that already. It all translates to the same thing, DEBT.
I said in the other thread, this is scary. We've had two PMOs tell us they are not liking what they see but you dismiss them.
You're a lost puppy. Like what are you even talking about?
Last edited:
Its not based on pop, its DEBT TO GDP ratio. Debt is not so bad if you making an investment in productive assets
You have no clue what you are talking about. Canada's population is significantly lower than any G7 member, so the call for debt will be lower. One of the advantages of having a lower population Globalist never talk about.
And also, no. You got it all wrong. Debt is not bad if you are making revenue to pay it off. "Investing" in an asset means nothing if it fails. Canada forced companies to invest in EV, only for them to lobby against it.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Something is an asset if it generates revenue or facilitates other revenue generating investments, or reduces costs. Housing will generate revenues as will all the ports and transport links. The call for debt per capita will not be lower, it will be higher as there are fewer efficiencies if scale in a vast country with harsh climate and spares population. And asset is something that has the potential to deliver future economic value. So to clear it up PP is NOT AN ASSET for example
🫡What about Brookfield and all their investments Carney has shares in? Are those assets?Something is an asset if it generates revenue or facilitates other revenue generating investments, or reduces costs. Housing will generate revenues as will all the ports and transport links. The call for debt per capita will not be lower, it will be higher as there are fewer efficiencies if scale in a vast country with harsh climate and spares population. And asset is something that has the potential to deliver future economic value. So to clear it up PP is NOT AN ASSET for example
I'll repeat this to you again since you seemed to not understand, Debt is not bad if you are making revenue to pay it off. "Investing" in an asset means nothing if it fails. What this means is unless you are showing me the revenue to payoff the increase in debt payments, this is a pipe dream.
What about Brookfield? Look up the definition of assets. If they have no economic value they are not assets (like PP) if they have economic value they will generate tax revenue.
And this right here is the problem with Canada. Liberals will say things and most the public can't understand or are straight dismissive of the full risk.
People like you have the mindset of "Well, a Liberal is in office, no need to worry anymore."
You can't even grasp the concept of debt.
Nobody cares what right wingers say about this when its only a partisan attack.
Until you call out DoFo for way worse corruption, you should keep it to yourself.
Of course I can, that's why I repaid all my debt and do not have any. But I am sure most con's here would consider Singapore a well run nation, look at their debt.
What about Brookfield? They used debt as well, to make investments.You only paid because you were told to. You did it, but it doesn't mean you understand it.Of course I can, that's why I repaid all my debt and do not have any. But I am sure most con's here would consider Singapore a well run nation, look at their debt.
Nope I paid my mortgage of in 10 years, and have large HLOCS that I have never used. BUT taking on debt to buy my house is an example of GOOD DEBT. Well it has been so far, but any asset can rise and fall.
You paid off your debt, which turned it into good debt.
So is Canada paying off it's current debts? When? (And I fully expect you to read from the Liberal script in your response)
Nope it was good debt to start, not because I paid it off. The house provided accomodation and even the carrying cost was less then rent at the time. It provided economic value. Even appreciation aside, I have avoided paying hundreds of thousands of $$ in rent in the last 28 years and have had very nice stress free accommodation that has allowed me to focus on education, job and now investing. As well as a source of income if I needed it.
