Kevin O'Leary nails it.

[rubecube]

I do love the cognitive dissonance of provincial PC/WRP supporters, who also support the federal Conservatives.

"Harper has run nine straight deficits and is now in the second recession of his leadership."

"Yeah but the global economy, price oil, etc. Surely can't blame Harper for that."

"The Alberta economy doesn't show any signs of recovery after six months of NDP rule."

"GOD DAMN NDP ARE USELESS! RABBLE RABBLE!"

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do love the cognitive dissonance of provincial PC/WRP supporters, who also support the federal Conservatives.

"Harper has run nine straight deficits and is now in the second recession of his leadership."

"Yeah but the global economy, price oil, etc. Surely can't blame Harper for that."

"The Alberta economy doesn't show any signs of recovery after six months of NDP rule."

"GOD DAMN NDP ARE USELESS! RABBLE RABBLE!"

Nobody blames the NDP for the current meltdown and resulting deficits. What PC/WRP supporters are angry at them about is that the changes they brought in or proposed have a high probability of making things directionally worse.

Stop being obtuse. It makes it difficult to converse or debate with you. Which is a shame because its a good opportunity to have these sorts of debates in here with people like yourself who are on the opposite side of the table as me.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by firebug

Because it leads to you (and lots in the media) thinking this is a cash expense.

Look at their Q2 cash flow statement. What did you see? Right, they added back the deferred tax expense and end up with cash from operations of 1,285MM for the quarter. That means they didn't actually pay any of that right now but are letting investors know that over time (and assuming nothing changes) that will have to pay more taxes.

Last year they only paid $700 million in taxes in North America and let's assume that it was all in AB. Now lets raise this by 20% so the new value is 840MM. 140MM is a lot of money, but it is on over $5,000MM in pre-tax Profits (taxes would go from 14 to 16.8% of profits; 2.8% extra).

$579MM seems like a lot (and it is) but measuring it against 1 qtr of performance is the gimmick. In reality it reflects impact over a much greater amount of time and over a much larger value of revenues and profits.

Let's say you are the avg albertan with 1,000,000 in RRSPs. While individuals don't account for it this way, your personal 'balance sheet' would show the RRSP's on the asset side but on the liability side you would show a deferred tax liability, because when you withdraw them, you owe the gov't the taxes on them at whatever the future rate is.

So lets say you make some calculations and determine that at your forecast withdrawal rate you'll pay an average rate of 25% so on your personal Balance Sheet you'd show a Deferred tax liability of $250,000 (or more likely the PV of $250k). Now lets pretend that the Gov't increases the personal tax rate by 20% so you need to make a new deferred tax estimate on your next balance sheet which works out to 50k increase (or rather the PV of it). Your quarterly income statement would show that expense recognized now, even though the impact is far into the future and could make you show a loss even though the cash impact is zero right now.

Of course you'll be bitter at the gov't and may need to make some changes to your latte habit, but you are not going to have the house foreclosed upon.

I recognize corporate taxes are much more convoluted than my personal tax example, but my point is to show that how liabilities get accrued can cause lots of confusion when looking at them on a quarterly statement.

Thanks for explaining that.

First question.....why can corporations defer taxes? Makes no sense to me.

Last year they only paid $700 million in taxes in North America and let's assume that it was all in AB. Now lets raise this by 20% so the new value is 840MM. 140MM is a lot of money, but it is on over $5,000MM in pre-tax Profits (taxes would go from 14 to 16.8% of profits; 2.8% extra).

Full disclosure: I work for a big engineering company and CNRL is one of our clients.

It is that $140M that concerns me. That is $140M that is taken out of cash flow to fund future projects. It may not seem like a lot, but that original $700M is based on the 2014 oil price. I assume the number goes higher, if you take a year where the average price of oil is higher than the 2014 average.

My whole point is, that dollar taken by the government is a dollar taken away from project development. Surely, you can agree on that.

Here is a thought experiment. And what KOL was getting at. If you go from 10% to 0%, does that not help producers a bit? By reducing the tax bill, you may (no guarantees that this will work) have allowed companies to not put projects on hold. At least they would have been able to continue with smaller projects. Furthermore, it could have allowed them some money to increase the dividend and/or proceed with share buy backs that could have prevented their stock price from plunging.

Now onto the other issue.

http://www.cnrl.com/upload/media_ele...rim-report.pdf

Canadian Natural’s Chief Financial Officer, Corey Bieber, continued, “The Company has proactively reduced its
development programs in the context of lower commodity prices and lower cash flow. Liquidity remains strong at
$3.3 billion. During the second quarter, absent the impact of the $579 million charge due to the 20% increase in Alberta
corporate income tax rates, our earnings would have been $174 million. This charge effectively translates into lower
future cash flows and therefore, lowers reinvestment in the business. Based upon third party research, this lower future
capital reinvestment likely equates to about 4,100 fewer person years of direct, indirect and induced employment, with
follow-on impact of higher income taxes on future income streams.”

Help me dissect this thing.

I understand that you can't pay tax if you don't make a profit.

The Company incurred a net loss in Q2/15 of $405 million, compared to net earnings of $1,070 million in Q2/14 and
a net loss of $252 million in Q1/15. The net loss in Q2/15 was primarily a result of the 20% increase in the Alberta
provincial corporate income tax rate from 10% to 12%, increasing Canadian Natural’s deferred income tax liability
by $579 million. Adjusted net earnings from operations for Q2/15 were $178 million, compared to adjusted net
earnings of $1,150 million in Q2/14 and $21 million in Q1/15. Changes in adjusted net earnings largely reflect the
changes in cash flow.

This is a confusing statement.

If they lost $405M, shouldn't they pay 0 tax. Can't pay tax on a loss right?

Did they make $178M or lose $405M?

If your net earnings are $178M should you not pay the tax on $178?

Or are they going to use this loss to offset it against a gain in the future?

At the end of the day, I stand by my OP. The next 4 years is going to be a horror movie that is going to have a tragic ending for all of us. The uncertainty of the royalty review and taking money out of companies cash flows (now or later) is the absolute wrong policy right now and we are worst off because of them.

[calf]

Deferred taxes isn't the company not paying its share. A company's earnings they report to the public is calculated differently from how you calculate your income for the government to pay taxes. It basically smooths a company's tax expense, and estimates what it may pay (or get back) in the future based on those differences. So, you pay at 27% for the government, but that amount taken from your accounting earnings might only be 20% - you basically bump up your total tax expense to show 27% because you estimate, all things being equal, that you'll have to pay that extra bit down the line as your reported and taxable earnings even out. It basically smooths your reported tax expense to something more predictable to people watching the company, as it's easier to predict and analyze than what a company might pay in a given year.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Thanks for explaining that.

First question.....why can corporations defer taxes? Makes no sense to me.

Last year they only paid $700 million in taxes in North America and let's assume that it was all in AB. Now lets raise this by 20% so the new value is 840MM. 140MM is a lot of money, but it is on over $5,000MM in pre-tax Profits (taxes would go from 14 to 16.8% of profits; 2.8% extra).

Full disclosure: I work for a big engineering company and CNRL is one of our clients.

It is that $140M that concerns me. That is $140M that is taken out of cash flow to fund future projects. It may not seem like a lot, but that original $700M is based on the 2014 oil price. I assume the number goes higher, if you take a year where the average price of oil is higher than the 2014 average.

My whole point is, that dollar taken by the government is a dollar taken away from project development. Surely, you can agree on that.

Here is a thought experiment. And what KOL was getting at. If you go from 10% to 0%, does that not help producers a bit? By reducing the tax bill, you may (no guarantees that this will work) have allowed companies to not put projects on hold. At least they would have been able to continue with smaller projects. Furthermore, it could have allowed them some money to increase the dividend and/or proceed with share buy backs that could have prevented their stock price from plunging.

Now you are talking much deeper questions (and some that would be better addressed by philosophers and political scientists).


Why defer? As an incentive… Back to the personal tax situation. The government figures that it is better to have citizens invest their money and let it grow than to collect it now and risk the citizen require financial assistance during their retirement – a bit of a win-win for everyone involved.


Same thing for corporations… they would rather expense things now (save taxes) than have to amortize it away over time. So in order to incentivize companies into investing their cash domestically rather than spending overseas or paying out cash as dividends, the gvt’ allows them to use those expenditures as tax shields so they pay less tax now, but firms have to catch up in the future. Riskier projects, ‘E’s, provide a better tax benefit than less risky projects, ‘D’s, but ultimately the corp will have to make square with their tax responsibility (ie, over time, cash taxes will equal the corporate tax rate). E&P’s will usually continue to invest in tax beneficial development however so it can sometimes tough to tease it apart over a single quarterly report.


E.g. A firm has 500mm in profits and owes 25% in corp tax (15% fed + 10% AB) for a total tax burden of 125mm. However, they have tax pools available this year shielding 220mm of profits so they only actually pay the govt cash taxes of 70 mm ((500-220)x0.25) but have to show a deferred tax charge for 55mm (220x0.25) on their balance sheet. Now a tax increase happens so in future years they have to pay 27%. Unfortunately that causes their deferred taxes to increase from 55mm to 59.4mm to reflect the new rate.
But wouldn’t a zero % tax rate for the company be better? Absolutely… for the company, but the company receives many benefits by being located in Alberta (whether those are equivalent to the tax charge is a separate discussion). Now if you could show me that all of the shareholders, employees, suppliers etc. were in alberta, you could probably make me consider a 0% rate, but reality is far from that case. Kevin o’leary certainly would be happier (and other non-alberta investors would) but as a AB citizen, I wouldn’t.


Furthermore, I don’t have much sympathy for shareholders either. Tax and royalty rates are not guaranteed and are a risk that a shrewd investor can chose to avoid or hedge their exposure to. If you look in CNRL’s AIF you will see those clearly listed in the risk factors section, why should I, as an Albertan subsidize a shareholders foolishness?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Now onto the other issue.

http://www.cnrl.com/upload/media_ele...rim-report.pdf

Canadian Natural’s Chief Financial Officer, Corey Bieber, continued, “The Company has proactively reduced its
development programs in the context of lower commodity prices and lower cash flow. Liquidity remains strong at
$3.3 billion. During the second quarter, absent the impact of the $579 million charge due to the 20% increase in Alberta
corporate income tax rates, our earnings would have been $174 million. This charge effectively translates into lower
future cash flows and therefore, lowers reinvestment in the business. Based upon third party research, this lower future
capital reinvestment likely equates to about 4,100 fewer person years of direct, indirect and induced employment, with
follow-on impact of higher income taxes on future income streams.”

Help me dissect this thing.

I understand that you can't pay tax if you don't make a profit.

The Company incurred a net loss in Q2/15 of $405 million, compared to net earnings of $1,070 million in Q2/14 and
a net loss of $252 million in Q1/15. The net loss in Q2/15 was primarily a result of the 20% increase in the Alberta
provincial corporate income tax rate from 10% to 12%, increasing Canadian Natural’s deferred income tax liability
by $579 million. Adjusted net earnings from operations for Q2/15 were $178 million, compared to adjusted net
earnings of $1,150 million in Q2/14 and $21 million in Q1/15. Changes in adjusted net earnings largely reflect the
changes in cash flow.

This is a confusing statement.

If they lost $405M, shouldn't they pay 0 tax. Can't pay tax on a loss right?

Did they make $178M or lose $405M?

If your net earnings are $178M should you not pay the tax on $178?

Or are they going to use this loss to offset it against a gain in the future?

At the end of the day, I stand by my OP. The next 4 years is going to be a horror movie that is going to have a tragic ending for all of us. The uncertainty of the royalty review and taking money out of companies cash flows (now or later) is the absolute wrong policy right now and we are worst off because of them.

First off, remember that he answers to his shareholders and not to citizens of the province but, he wants to win the Hearts and Minds ™ of Albertans to pressure the government to benefit his owners at the citizen’s expense.

Frankly, I wish I could parse what he is trying to say but a tax accountant would be a much better choice to try and make sense of it. Do I believe that the tax change caused an increase in his deferred tax position, absolutely. Do I think that all 579mm was due to it, not a chance (or at least I’m very skeptical). The change is only 2% of his earnings before taxes so if that 2% is equal to $579mm that means that somewhere there is nearly $30B of profits sheltered, and if so, that $579 is then really quite immaterial.

I’d like to see these guys put their money where their mouth is. Tell me, as a citizen, how much extra you will invest in AB next year if we let you pay 10% instead of 12%. Tell me how many employees you will hire back (and let us audit it). The truth IMHO is that those numbers will be embarrassingly small. They are not investing (and laying off staff) because of commodity prices not because of a piddly change to provincial corporate tax rate. However railing at the international commodity trading community isn’t going to score him the points that pissing at the government will. Again, I’ve reviewed the projects at my firm and getting that 2% back will not give any of them a green light (I’d pay 15% provincial tax if they could get me $4 aeco and $65 WTI ;-).

How can you pay taxes when you have zero profits? Easy, let’s go back to our Personal Tax example… you’ve now retired and have no income so you withdraw 100K from your RRSP’s on which you pay $25k in 'income taxes' (even though your income is zero). Remember in corporate accounting there is a big difference between ‘cash basis’ and ‘accrued basis’ and that is what the deferred tax line is trying to bridge.

As for your 4-year paranoia… government’s get far too much credit when things go well and far too much blame when things go poorly. AB’s fiscal position in 4 yrs will be 95% dependent on the commodity markets and 5% on government action so start directing your fear in the proper direction so you can deal with it properly.

I’m not an uninvolved bystander either. I work in E&P and did not vote NDP in the provincial election. I suspect that my probability of becoming unemployed in the next twelve months is approaching 100%. But I recognized the volatile nature of the industry I was in and took steps to insulate myself from suffering when things inevitably turn bad. You should do the same, you’ll sleep much better.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Nobody blames the NDP for the current meltdown and resulting deficits. What PC/WRP supporters are angry at them about is that the changes they brought in or proposed have a high probability of making things directionally worse.

Stop being obtuse. It makes it difficult to converse or debate with you. Which is a shame because its a good opportunity to have these sorts of debates in here with people like yourself who are on the opposite side of the table as me.

This entire thread is based around the premise that capital flight from the province is occurring or will occur because of what the NDP have done in their six months in power, despite the fact that it had already been occurring before they came to power. To add to that, someone in here or in the other thread referenced the Conaco layoffs, which have been planned since Feb/March from what I understand, so let's not pretend people aren't blaming the NDP for not having fixed these things yet.

As for the high probability of failure, again there's cognitive dissonance. We've seen the economic policies of the federal Conservatives failing for nearly a decade, but there's always some excuse for why that is. However if the employment isn't projected to rise or whatever other indicator you want to use isn't positive in Alberta, it must be because of what the NDP have proposed.

[Izzle]

At this point,

Firebug > Kevin O'Leary.

Dat's fo sho.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This entire thread is based around the premise that capital flight from the province is occurring or will occur because of what the NDP have done in their six months in power, despite the fact that it had already been occurring before they came to power. To add to that, someone in here or in the other thread referenced the Conaco layoffs, which have been planned since Feb/March from what I understand, so let's not pretend people aren't blaming the NDP for not having fixed these things yet.

As for the high probability of failure, again there's cognitive dissonance. We've seen the economic policies of the federal Conservatives failing for nearly a decade, but there's always some excuse for why that is. However if the employment isn't projected to rise or whatever other indicator you want to use isn't positive in Alberta, it must be because of what the NDP have proposed.

No, this entire thread is based around the premise that incremental capital flight from the province is occuring or will occur because of what the NDP have done in their six months in power.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No, this entire thread is based around the premise that incremental capital flight from the province is occuring or will occur because of what the NDP have done in their six months in power.

Right, but was this not occurring prior to them coming to power, and was it not also predictable regardless of who was elected due to the price of oil? Either way, even if the NDP are guilty of economic mismanagement, it's still interesting to me that posters aren't willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to the federal party in power. Obviously that's also not a rebuttal to the charges against the NDP.

[EldrickOnIce]

^ That has been mentioned a few times, including ding by O' Leary in the video. That all governments are to blame, not just the NDP in Alberta. He was specifically referencing Harper's inability to get much needed pipeline approval, something he has failed miserably at.

[Ashasx]

Thank you firebug for taking the time to explain all of this.

Your intellect makes me insecure.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ That has been mentioned a few times, including ding by O' Leary in the video. That all governments are to blame, not just the NDP in Alberta. He was specifically referencing Harper's inability to get much needed pipeline approval, something he has failed miserably at.

I know this is going to sound shocking coming from me, but I actually don't really blame Harper all that much either. I think there have been a whole bunch of exceptional circumstances and changes that have contributed to the current economic woes in the province. It would've been insanely difficult for anyone to get those pipelines going.

[GGG]

Harpers state owned enterprises investment limits does far more damage in terms of capital flight away from Canada.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

Harpers state owned enterprises investment limits does far more damage in terms of capital flight away from Canada.

Explain?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by firebug

As the individual in my firm who does all of the project valuation modelling I thought I'd take a look at some of our historical approved projects to see how much of an impact the tax change makes...

10% Tax Rate: IRR 14.2%; PVAT7% $2,427.4MM
12% Tax rate: IRR 13.9%; PVAT7% $2,378.2MM

So a while a 20% tax increase sounds like a big bogeyman, it only impacted our PV by 2% (What a surprise ;-). A change that small is unlikely to affect project approval for all but the most marginal of projects (which likely wouldn't have flown anyways).

Those who are trying to blame the NDP for the lack of corporate investment in the current economic climate are barking up the wrong tree and are displaying their lack of real-world experience in these matters.

This example is fine and I agree with you that the change is not going to have a material impact on very many projects on a micro level. Projects that had a positive NPV previously aren't going to become uneconomic all of the sudden solely due to the corporate tax increase.

However, I think you need to be looking at this at a macro level from a capital budgeting perspective. Companies operating across multiple jurisdictions have limited capital to invest and a multitude of potential projects to invest in. The 2% (or should I say 0.3 percentage point ) decrease in IRR in your example may not seem like a lot, but it will cause Alberta based projects to move down the pecking order on many priority lists. While the change may seem immaterial to you, it undeniably will have an impact on investment inflows to Alberta.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

NStop being obtuse. It makes it difficult to converse or debate with you. Which is a shame because its a good opportunity to have these sorts of debates in here with people like yourself who are on the opposite side of the table as me.

Is he being obtuse or just pointing out that there is a disproportionate amount of hysteria directed at policies that are of debatable impact compared to policies that have had an observed negative effect? Sure, we can discuss both, but again much of the rhetoric seems partisan at its root and not actually concerned with policy.

Personally I don't think increasing the tax rate is a good idea, but rather implementing a sales tax or hiking personal income taxes would be a better choice, if you're trying to address the historical dependence on oil revenue to pay for the budget. However, this being a political decision, who do you think the NDP is going to want to anger: the people who voted for them, or their political opponents?

To put it bluntly, most of you aren't the target audience for these changes, just like rube isn't the target of Harper's "rah rah law'n'order!" agenda: the NDP doesn't care what you think. I know that after decades of pandering to the affluent insiders, it's tough to be on the outside looking in, but crying and whining about it just makes it easy for them to ignore your concerns as the envy that it all too convincingly appears to be.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Right, but was this not occurring prior to them coming to power, and was it not also predictable regardless of who was elected due to the price of oil?

Yes. It was. I will go out on a limb and speak on behalf of all PC/WRP supporters in this thread and state the following:


Capital was fleeing from the oil sands prior to the spectre of an NDP government. This was occurring because of cost overruns these investments were continually demonstrating, a shift in global sentiment against carbon intensive crudes, and then finally the GCC crashing the price of oil. This is out of the control and mandate of any governing party, including the new NDP.


That being said, changes implemented or proposed by the NDP such as increased corporate taxes, royalty reviews and anti-pipeline sentiment will directionally harm the O&G business environment and create an incremental flight of capital.


I welcome any PC/WRP supporter on here to quote that, notably the first paragraph, and rebut it. Assuming a bunch of people don’t, you can forever put to rest this false idea that PC/WRP supporters are pinning the current troubles exclusively on the NDP and recognize that there is a difference between “already bad” and “making it worse”. It makes us look silly to the uniformed and you look silly to the informed.

Originally Posted by rubecube

Either way, even if the NDP are guilty of economic mismanagement, it's still interesting to me that posters aren't willing to call a spade a spade when it comes to the federal party in power. Obviously that's also not a rebuttal to the charges against the NDP.

First, regarding the mismanagement of Alberta finances, I will also go out on a limb and state the following:


The PC's mismanaged our finances leading to smaller surpluses / larger deficits over the last few years. This was partly because they became fat, lazy and entitiled, and partly because they had two successive absolutely terrible leaders. They made us more unprepared to handle this current downturn (i.e. similar to the above concept, I’m not trying to pass off the PC’s failings on the global economy. They made a bad situation worse). At the end of the PC reign, Alberta had both a revenue problem and a spending problem. Fixing this is something any governing party has within their mandate and ability to correct.


That being said, the NDP have taken steps towards fixing the revenue problem, notably with a steeper progressive tax system as compared to the PC’s proposal. They should be commended for that. However some of their other proposed revenue ideas such as raising corporate taxes and “reviewing” royalties create concerns highlighted above. For that they deserve a healthy debate. Furthermore, they have done absolutely nothing to fix the spending side of the ledger, and in fact want to dramatically increase it. For that they absolutely deserve criticism of mismanaging of our finances.


Once again, I welcome any PC/WRP supporter on here to quote that, notably the first paragraph, and rebut it. And once again, assuming they don’t, hopefully that can also put to rest any notion that PC/WRP supporters will lay blame for upcoming deficits entirely on the NDP and recognize that once again there is a difference between “already bad” and “making it worse”.



Now finally, onto the CPC mismanaging our federal finances and cognitive dissonance as it relates to PC/WRP supporters’ view of the NDP. Could you give some examples of similarities between Alberta NDP and federal CPC economic policies and how PC/WRP supporters are holding these similarities to a different standard? Serious question, not some loaded “I don’t think there are any and already have a rebuttal prepared” question. I’m genuinely interested in the topic. Then we can have a mature conversation about issues instead of just throwing out broad and false perceptions of a group of people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Yes. It was. I will go out on a limb and speak on behalf of all PC/WRP supporters in this thread and state the following:

This all well-thought out, nuanced, etc., and worth debating. The problem is that there just hasn't been any hard evidence produced to support any of the arguments. It's mostly been hyper-partisan speculation or statements from industry insiders that are quite obviously agenda-driven.

FTR, I'm generally of the opinion that personal income tax increases and sales taxes are better revenue streams than corporate tax raises for many of the reasons you've mentioned, but I also realize that we're only four months into a new government and there's a chance that I could be wrong. To actually claim that there's proof that NDP are making things worse borders on absurdity.

Now finally, onto the CPC mismanaging our federal finances and cognitive dissonance as it relates to PC/WRP supporters’ view of the NDP. Could you give some examples of similarities between Alberta NDP and federal CPC economic policies and how PC/WRP supporters are holding these similarities to a different standard? Serious question, not some loaded “I don’t think there are any and already have a rebuttal prepared” question. I’m genuinely interested in the topic. Then we can have a mature conversation about issues instead of just throwing out broad and false perceptions of a group of people.

But that's not really the point because CPC supporters are maintaining that this current four-month span and the projected future losses are indicative of failed NDP economic policies, but that the current state of the federal economy is not indicative of failed CPC policies. The similarities between the policies should be irrelevant when judging the results. And it's not just that really. It's also that posters seem to be granting environmental factors to the CPC that they're not to the NDP (granted we're talking provincial vs. federal). It also seems odd to me that anyone could think that a party who's been in power for four months could hold more influence over the economy than a party that's been in power for 11 years.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

FTR, I'm generally of the opinion that personal income tax increases and sales taxes are better revenue streams than corporate tax raises for many of the reasons you've mentioned, but I also realize that we're only four months into a new government and there's a chance that I could be wrong. To actually claim that there's proof that NDP are making things worse borders on absurdity.

Come on rubecube, do you really think its absurd to suggest that increasing spending more than increasing revenue is a dumb move when we were already spending too much and collecting too little?

Originally Posted by rubecube

But that's not really the point because CPC supporters are maintaining that this current four-month span and the projected future losses are indicative of failed NDP economic policies, but that the current state of the federal economy is not indicative of failed CPC policies.

Who? Where? I'll smack them myself based on the above. And don't try to package "they're making it worse" in with "it was already bad".

FTR, on the surface I am of the belief that the current state of the federal economy is not indicative of failed CPC policies. I think the CPC have a pretty good track record relative to the economic environment. We were on pace for a balanced budget and things were looking good until this recent recession. But I'm open to debate that. What failed policies resulted in this?

Originally Posted by rubecube

The similarities between the policies should be irrelevant when judging the results.

Correlation is not causation. To ignore the policies and only judge the results is a poor approach.

I've given some NDP policies and justified why I think they're directionally bad. I'm open to debate if they're bad. Let's stack them up against some CPC policies and debate why they are bad. Then someone like myself can maybe understand "hmm good point, I am holding a double standard."