Gross-Misconduct Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 After reading your post, I just died of grammar cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyledude Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Is that the same S&P being indicted for assigning fraudulent ratings? It's possible that they're even more corrupt than the BC Liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Is that the same S&P being indicted for assigning fraudulent ratings? It's possible that they're even more corrupt than the BC Liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Let me translate. The BC Liberals are a collection of corrupt, contemptuous and inept individuals who make lying to the public their political platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Is that the same S&P being indicted for assigning fraudulent ratings? It's possible that they're even more corrupt than the BC Liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Your translation software seems to be badly coded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 How so? At least there is an operating asset in existence in the province. You do know that the fast ferries were in fact sold to the Washington Marine Group who in turn then sold them to Abu Dhabi Mar, a yacht-building company based in the United Arab Emirates. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rries-sold.html Do you have a reputable link that says otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Yes. Standard and Poor has been charged. Here are the details. http://www.economist...-victim-support However in this case the other two major ratings services (Dominion Bond Rating and Moody's) agree with S&P's conclusions in respect of BC and track the same historical ratings results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Moody's and Fitch for that matter did the same things S&P did. Rated obvious highly speculative crap AAA, only they have yet to be charged. Trumpeting the opinions/ratings of liars and cheats doesn't really help to strengthen your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Moodys has not been charged and the third rating service I referenced was Dominion not Fitch's. Since credit is based upon those ratings, in the real world it has impact on real BC taxpayers and the US charges have no effect on that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Yes I know Moody's has not been charged. They did exactly what S&P did, their time is coming. I mentioned Fitch because they are part of the "Big 3". You mistakenly referenced DBRS as one of the Big 3 in your earlier post. Has no effect? If you're going to invest or loan money for investment into this province are you not going to look into the credibility of the agency making the Tripe A rating? S&P is now viewed with a jaundiced eye. DBRS has more credibility than they do. Dominion is not one of the "Big 3". The Big 3 are S&P, Moody's and Fitch. Dominion is much farther down the list. Though I would say they have more credibility than S&P. Who are still wiping egg off their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 In Canada Dominion is considered one of the Big Three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Thanks for the chuckle. Perhaps you should change the title of your thread to herald their rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 Let me translate. The BC Liberals are a collection of corrupt, contemptuous and inept individuals who make lying to the public their political platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 That's what all politicians do, NDP or Liberal. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTania Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 BC is indeed in a better shape now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 VICTORIA - There was Premier Christy Clark Monday, dedicating herself to the goal of a “debt-free British Columbia,” and telling reporters that debt reduction has always been “a central value for me.” Alas for Clark and her B.C. Liberals, the record of her time in office, reflected in the audited financial statements combined with her government’s three-year-fiscal plan, tell a radically different story. Clark took the oath of office as premier two weeks before the March 31 end of the 2010-2011 financial year. The provincial debt, including borrowing by central government and its Crown corporations and agencies, stood at $45 billion. Her predecessor, premier Gordon Campbell, having inherited a debt of $34 billion from the previous New Democratic Party government, had managed to slow the rate of borrowing during his second term as premier. But after the 2008 global financial crisis, it began growing again, and Clark did nothing to slacken the pace. In her first two years, her government added $11 billion to the debt, the biggest jump in dollar terms in provincial history. Nor did she reverse the trend with the budget and fiscal plan tabled in the legislature in February this year. The plan called for three balanced budgets on the operational side, meaning no cause to borrow more money to fund ongoing programs like health care, education and other government services. But Clark and her colleagues continued to budget for a huge increase in borrowing for capital projects, including the ambitious rebuilding of the BC Hydro network, the Port Mann Bridge and other transportation projects, and numerous schools, hospitals, college and university buildings, and other public works. Altogether, the Liberal plan proposes to add $6 billion to the total provincial debt this year, $4 billion in the financial year beginning April 1, 2014 and $3 billion the year after that. So the premier who wishes to be recognized for a commitment to make the province debt free is in fact proposing to increase the provincial debt by $13 billion over three years, having already increased it by $11 billion. Or, to put it another way, the leader who supposedly holds debt reduction as one of her “central values” would — presuming her government were to be re-elected — preside over a plan to raise the debt to $69 billion, a better-than-50-per-cent increase over where it stood when she took office. Give her fiscal purity, Lord — just not yet. Clark’s debt-elimination plan, as sketched out in the Liberal election platform released Monday, relies on the government being able to tap the anticipated windfall from development of an industry to export the provincial natural gas resource in liquefied form to Asian markets. LNG development is much needed in terms of shoring up provincial resource revenues. But there are many ifs to the scenario, well-intentioned though it is. Even in the best-case outcome outlined by the B.C. Liberals, the revenue would not start flowing into the envisioned B.C. Prosperity Fund until 2017 at the earliest. Therefore, Clark is running this year on the promise of a windfall that won’t come to fruition until the election after this one, if then. Nor was that the only absurdity in the platform. She trumpeted a plan to reduce the small business tax from the current 2.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent “no later than” the 2017 financial year. That one should also be footnoted against the record. On the eve of the last provincial election, the Liberals pledged to lower the small business tax to zero, wiping it out altogether, effective April 1, 2012. Clark inherited that schedule when she took office in 2011 and promptly abandoned it as part of the struggle to balance the budget, leaving the rate at 2.5 per cent. Thus on Monday she invited business leaders to celebrate the prospect that four years from now, the small business tax rate will be reduced to a level that would still be 1.5 points higher than where it should have been this time last year, if the Liberals had kept the promise they made in the last election. Her election platform also included the promise of a “core review” of all ministries as part of an effort to contain spending, cut costs and eliminate programs and services that are deemed to be not an essential part of the core services of government. Say, didn’t the Liberals already do one of those? Yes, after the 2001 election. They launched a second one in all but name starting in 2008, which has to date led to the reduction of the equivalent of 6,000 full-time positions in the public service. But the core review was part of a theme that “everything old shall be new again,” along with the commitments to cut red tape — now there’s a fresh idea! — freeze taxes and restore balanced budget legislation. What won’t these Liberals think of next: open cabinet meetings? A waste buster website? Joking aside, at the same time as the premier invokes the darker aspects of the NDP time in office in the 1990s, she would appear to be counting on the voters to have short memories of the Liberal record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Yeah it's a little funny isn't it. It's one of the reason I shake my head when people get so irrationally anti one in favor of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Debt isn't a bad thing for governments to have. Actually, some debt is good. If interest rates are low (which they are, and for the government even more so), and you can invest the money to get a higher return (which the government can do as infrastructure projects offer a great economic return), you borrow and build. Borrowing money to offset a structural deficit (read: to pay operating expenses), is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Debt isn't a bad thing for governments to have. Actually, some debt is good. If interest rates are low (which they are, and for the government even more so), and you can invest the money to get a higher return (which the government can do as infrastructure projects offer a great economic return), you borrow and build. Borrowing money to offset a structural deficit (read: to pay operating expenses), is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.