[SkyGod]

...Except for all the things we have to show for it.

Like what?

 

[SkyGod]

Deficit hawks have been caw-cawing about "dangerous deficits" ever since I can remember (since 1975 at least). Maybe someone can point to the time that a deficit brought some kind of economic collapse (Greece!! Argentina!! Venezuela!!) to Canada. Forty years of crying wolf... nobody's buying it anymore.

The 90s were a tough time full of austerity budgets due to government debt that was out of control.

In Ontario today we spend more than $10B a year on interest payments alone, at record-low rates. It's the 3rd biggest expenditure in the province after health and education. You don't think we could use an extra $10B a year in the budget to either cut taxes or increase services?

If we have a recession today, what are the Feds supposed to do? We're running a stimulus budget in good times and can't lower interest rates anymore. There are no policy moves left for when we hit a recession.

 

[Jasmine18]

Even if it were later in the game, recent events have demonstrated that advance polling is not particularly accurate. The people who respond to polls =/= the people who actually vote. (See: Ontario 2014, Brexit, USA 2016)

The people who respond disproportionately to pollsters (if the 2014 election is any indication) are the same ones who read the Sun and listen to wingnut radio stations. The people who decide elections in Ontario- moderate suburbanites- are too busy with their jobs, kids, and lawns.

Don't count the Liberals out just yet.

I think moderate suburbanites are quite pissed off too as well.

The difference this time is that the election as of now is about voting against the Liberals.

I think the only way the liberals win if they bring up the ghost of christmas past with the Tories because the liberals do not have any record to stand on apart from pathetic incompetence and the small minded ideologues who prop this government up with false majorities.

 

[ADRM]

Like what?

There are two federal budgets to answer that question but, to pick just a couple, a strong economy and billions of dollars of transit planning.

 

[ADRM]

I think moderate suburbanites are quite pissed off too as well.

The difference this time is that the election as of now is about voting against the Liberals.

I think the only way the liberals win if they bring up the ghost of christmas past with the Tories because the liberals do not have any record to stand on apart from pathetic incompetence and the small minded ideologues who prop this government up with false majorities.

...Nothing to stand on except the strongest economy in a decade, more investment in transit and infrastructure than at any point in Ontario history, etc.

What's small minded are people who blithely assume everything they read in the Sun. Seriously, does anyone actually have any independent or critical thought to offer?

Also, there's no such thing as "false majorities", but cute.

 

[SkyGod]

There are two federal budgets to answer that question but, to pick just a couple, a strong economy and billions of dollars of transit planning.

Billions in "transit planning"? Hahaha that's rich.

 

[ADRM]

Billions in "transit planning"? Hahaha that's rich.

You're right; it's quite a lot of money indeed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Billions in "transit planning"? Hahaha that's rich.

So now we have you and others on record stating your stance, you'll be supporting the Investment Bank...correct?

 

[SkyGod]

You're right; it's quite a lot of money indeed.

Let's hear what transit planning has been done under the Federal Liberals. Specific projects and the price tags...

Here, I'll help (notice there's no "billions in transit planning spending"):

 

[SkyGod]

So now we have you and others on record stating your stance, you'll be supporting the Investment Bank...correct?

???

Infrastructure bank is a bad idea. It's simply a way for government to hold debt off their balance sheet. Buy now, pay more later. No private lender can access capital as cheap as the government so it will cost more.

 

[steveintoronto]

???

Infrastructure bank is a bad idea. It's simply a way for government to hold debt off their balance sheet. Buy now, pay more later. No private lender can access capital as cheap as the government so it will cost more.

I thought as much. That's why I wanted you on record stating what you have.
"No private lender can access capital as cheap as the government so it will cost more." You completely contradicted your stance writing that.

The establishment of a Canadian infrastructure bank has risen to
the top of the national political agenda after being identified as a
key piece of the new federal government’s infrastructure investment
program. The purpose of a Canadian infrastructure bank is to provide low
interest loans and credit enhancement services to provincial and municipal
governments investing in infrastructure for priority sectors. The cost of
project financing is reduced by taking advantage of the federal government’s
top credit rating.
This report assesses the merits, likely benefits and optimal design of a
Canadian infrastructure bank (CIB). It shows that because of the relatively
small spread between the interest rates at which the federal and most
provincial and municipal governments borrow money, the lending services
of an infrastructure bank would provide significant benefits but only for the
largest infrastructure projects.[...]

http://www.pppcouncil.ca/web/pdf/rccao_infrastructure_bank_discussion_paper_02172016.pdf

Perhaps if you got beyond muttering mantras and actually understood the basis of project financing we could move this discussion to a more fact-based one?

Lots on-line. I'd suggest Googling PPP or PFI so that the term "Investment Banking" isn't quite so confusing? It's the fact that governments, by having to underwrite their debt (instances like Greece besides) get the most optimal rates possible that PPP/PFI can work so well *IF* well implemented...but I digress, as you were. You are on record...

 

[SkyGod]

In traditional procurement, the government pays a contractor to build something. It comes out of the general budget. Any budget shortfall is financed via the treasury (i.e. lower interest rates than any private borrower).

In P3s, the contractor provides the financing and the government pays for the building over the lifespan of the building in installments. Since the private sector is doing the borrowing and have a lower credit rating than the government, the financing costs are higher.

Get it?

If the idea is that the Feds are borrowing money on behalf of municipalities or others to get a lower interest rate...that makes sense. But that isn't what is being proposed:

Ottawa also expects the Infrastructure Bank to be operational by the end of the year, staffed with a chief executive officer and board of directors. The bank is aimed at combining public and private funds for big-ticket projects, to speed construction, and take advantage of institutional investors’ asset management and development expertise.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-cash-in-infrastructure-push/article34392164/

They want private capital, which is more expensive than public.

 

[ADRM]

In traditional procurement, the government pays a contractor to build something. It comes out of the general budget. Any budget shortfall is financed via the treasury (i.e. lower interest rates than any private borrower).

In P3s, the contractor provides the financing and the government pays for the building over the lifespan of the building in installments. Since the private sector is doing the borrowing and have a lower credit rating than the government, the financing costs are higher.

Get it?

Financing costs are not the only costs included in procurement projects. Get it?

 

[ADRM]

Let's hear what transit planning has been done under the Federal Liberals. Specific projects and the price tags...

Here, I'll help (notice there's no "billions in transit planning spending"):

If you don't understand the difference between the monetary value of contracts awarded and amount of money budgeted, then I really cannot help you.

 

[steveintoronto]

In traditional procurement, the government pays a contractor to build something. It comes out of the general budget. Any budget shortfall is financed via the treasury (i.e. lower interest rates than any private borrower).

In P3s, the contractor provides the financing and the government pays for the building over the lifespan of the building in installments. Since the private sector is doing the borrowing and have a lower credit rating than the government, the financing costs are higher.

Get it?

That's PFI, not PPP. Keep digging...

PFI (Private Finance Initiative)/PPP (Public Private Partnerships) and...
https://www.lexisnexis.com/.../PFI (Private Finance Initiative)/PPP (Pu...
'PFI' stands for 'Private Finance Initiative' and 'PPP' and 'P3s' are both shorthand for 'Public Private Partnerships'. PFI and PPP both have very similar characteristics, the key difference being the way in which the relevant project is funded.

http://www.acec.ca/files/resources/acec_P3_report_v3.pdf