October 2007 monthly deficit cause for alarm?

[BubberMiley]

You are simply saying that the deficit is bad when before you were arguing for tax cuts. Spin some more for me baby!

You are simply ignoring the reference to spending cuts so that you can pretend you're making a point.

[Argus]

No need for personal attacks.

You deserve little better. I despise your kind of mindless, soulless political attacks. I sometimes wonder if you're even a real person or just a computer program developed by the junior liberals. Your posts have no humour, no common sense, no humanity in them at all. They're like press releases written up by a committee of second rate spin doctors.

The fact is that the Tories have fallen into deficit this month which is something they said would not happen if they were elected government.

I'm not even sure what you're saying, but I know that if this were a Liberal government you would dismiss this sort of vapid attack as absurd political posturing. I bought a new monitor yesterday. I guess you could say I slipped into deficit for the day. I bought a new car in July, so I guess the down payment put me in "deficit" for the month. Your attack has no sense to it. It's ludicrous party spittle put out there for no purpose but cold, crass political propaganda. Even you don't believe in it.

At least the idiots of the left on this site believe in their moronic positions. I don't think you actually believe anything you write. It's just part of your "job" to put out spin.

[Topaz]

I think 2008 may not be a good year for North America as a whole. Since the Canadian economy is affected by the US, I think 2008 on could be rough. The US interest on its debt is 8 BILLION yearly and apparently Bush has been printing money to pay for it. The Iraq war is going to bankrupt the country and this will affect us. Certain business now are laying off workers, mostly from Ontario to the Martimes. Companies are still pulling out of Canada and going to Mexico and that leaves alot of jobless people. IE rules have been change so a person can only draw for 8 months and not 12 months. Since these people paid into this fund, they should be able to stay on it until they do find a job! The tax cuts I'm not sure its the time to do it when Canada is in a war and military cost are up, Canada has given millions of dollars to Afghanistan but I bet we can't show were the money went after the President get it! The minister said he wanted to give a cut in taxes to the 100,000 up, which is saying to themselves, but I don't think he'll be able to. I don't think we will see much in the next budget.

[Wilber]

Since it is the first time in a long time where a monthly deficit has been run up, I'd should be noted. It is especially noteworthy when there has been no spending cuts to go along with the tax cuts.

I'm sure it has been noted. If it becomes a trend, something will have to be done about it. If the government is worried about a downturn in the economy (and all governments do) the only way they can stimulate it is with tax cuts and increased spending but there is a limit to both. They are in the process of finding out where that limit is. As far as a one month deficit goes, it is nothing more than interesting. There are plenty of profitable companies that only make money in one or two quarters. Most retail businesses are in the red most of the year but still wind up in the black at years end.

Cutting its own spending wasn't a big part of the previous governments policy either, most of it was downloading costs to the provinces and municipalities. I think that is a problem with our federal system in general.

[August1991]

Has anyone really figured out how much money they will get in these tax breaks, or have you even asked if we would have been better off as a society forgetting these tax breaks right now and help kids with their tuition fees, Harper could have taken the opportunity to introduce measures to adjust seniors' pensions to help those seniors who have to decide about what to buy, hydro or food. Nothing was done about investing in home care for seniors. Nothing was done to help seniors pay for drugs.

By that logic, the government should tax all our earnings and spend the money on our benefit.

This tax-and-spend mentality is no longer popular in Canada (outside of some urban areas) and the federal Liberals/NDP are defined as tax-and-spend.

[Shakeyhands]

The number of personal attacks in this thread are almost mind boggling.

I would have changed the thread title to "slipping in to deficit" but there you go.

Increases in tax cuts and endless spending are what are going to be the economic downfall of all of us. It amazes me that those CPC supporters don't want to accept this.

[margrace]

You better watchout because the gov't seems to be redoing everyone's income tax, even down to the one employee, part time worker who had paid the fees but is now being treated as a criminal with frightening letters. Turns out there might be $4 in interest owing. I have been told that they probably are running out of money to pay for the Afghan war and they are using every means they can to collect extra.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure it has been noted. If it becomes a trend, something will have to be done about it. If the government is worried about a downturn in the economy (and all governments do) the only way they can stimulate it is with tax cuts and increased spending but there is a limit to both. They are in the process of finding out where that limit is. As far as a one month deficit goes, it is nothing more than interesting. There are plenty of profitable companies that only make money in one or two quarters. Most retail businesses are in the red most of the year but still wind up in the black at years end.

Cutting its own spending wasn't a big part of the previous governments policy either, most of it was downloading costs to the provinces and municipalities. I think that is a problem with our federal system in general.

What the present government is doing in decreasing taxes and increasing spending while the economy was doing well. They are continuing to do this even though it looks like we are headed for a slowdown. The fact of inflation is now well established in the last few updates from the Bank of Canada. We are in a dangerous period of possible stagflation and Harper said in end of year speech that the government policy will be "status quo."

Your comparison to a retail operation running into a deficit one month is noted. Some companies do have times when seasons such as Christmas make up the year. However, these companies gear down in the slow times and gear up in the fast times. The government doesn't do that and this is why a monthly deficit can grow quite quickly in a slow economy.

[jdobbin]

The number of personal attacks in this thread are almost mind boggling.

I would have changed the thread title to "slipping in to deficit" but there you go.

Increases in tax cuts and endless spending are what are going to be the economic downfall of all of us. It amazes me that those CPC supporters don't want to accept this.

That is the title I had in the beginning.

[jdobbin]

You deserve little better. I despise your kind of mindless, soulless political attacks. I sometimes wonder if you're even a real person or just a computer program developed by the junior liberals. Your posts have no humour, no common sense, no humanity in them at all. They're like press releases written up by a committee of second rate spin doctors.

I'm not even sure what you're saying, but I know that if this were a Liberal government you would dismiss this sort of vapid attack as absurd political posturing. I bought a new monitor yesterday. I guess you could say I slipped into deficit for the day. I bought a new car in July, so I guess the down payment put me in "deficit" for the month. Your attack has no sense to it. It's ludicrous party spittle put out there for no purpose but cold, crass political propaganda. Even you don't believe in it.

At least the idiots of the left on this site believe in their moronic positions. I don't think you actually believe anything you write. It's just part of your "job" to put out spin.

Almost your entire post here is nothing but a personal attack. I think there is maybe one sentence that talks about the deficit and I have addressed that in other replies. I'm sorry you are angry about things and feel the need to lash out.

[capricorn]

Increases in tax cuts and endless spending are what are going to be the economic downfall of all of us. It amazes me that those CPC supporters don't want to accept this.

I agree with the tax cuts already announced. Yet, with a possible economic downturn looming further tax cuts appear to be ill advised. Harper has warned us the upcoming budget will be lean and mean. So let's not get too excited about the possibility of new tax cuts until the budget is brought down.

IMO not enough has been done to reduce program spending. The problem is that Canadians have got so used to all the federal social programs it would be extremely difficult for any government to take the candy away from them. We've just been too spoiled. And now Canadians appear to want vast financial investments on the environment. In effect, are most Canadians not asking that the government stop running surpluses?

As a Conservative I want Harper to bite the bullet on some of these programs but I doubt it can happen as long as he is in a minority situation. And should the Liberals be elected I think tax and spend would once again re-visit us. Here's a sampling of Dion's plans:

"As an illustrative example, very preliminary estimates suggest that a WITB investment of $3-billion per year (current funding envelope is $550-million annually) could lift somewhere in the neighbourhood of 350,000 individuals above the LICO, including 100,000 children. These impacts alone would fall well short of those required to meet the 30-50 plan targets (one million individuals and 400,000 children respectively)," the analysis says.

This, of course, assumes that spending buckets of taxpayers' money in the teeth of an economic downturn has the desired effect on lifting low-income earners out of poverty. A big "if " but, for now, let's assume that the plan works as Mr. Dion suggests it would.

On top of the 30-50 plan, in his "war against poverty" speech, Mr. Dion also promised that a Liberal government would implement the Kelowna Accord for First Nations, at a cost of $5-billion over five years, and would introduce the "Dryden Plan" on universal child care, pencilled in at another $5-billion over five years. When you add in the cost of bringing back Mr. Dion's Project Green environment plan -- conservatively pegged at $1.3-billion a year -- you have spending increases estimated at around $8-billion a year in a slowing economy. Bottom line: The Liberals have already spent the surplus more than twice over."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column....html?id=191710

[Michael Bluth]

You deserve little better. I despise your kind of mindless, soulless political attacks. I sometimes wonder if you're even a real person or just a computer program developed by the junior liberals. Your posts have no humour, no common sense, no humanity in them at all. They're like press releases written up by a committee of second rate spin doctors.

There is such an impotence in the attacks it is staggering. In line with the impotence of the Liberal Party of Canada in forming an effective opposition to the Government.

The accounting treatment of these tax cuts could be analagous to the term a 'big bath'. In mid-year the Government made cuts that applied to the entire fiscal year. Finance could have gone back and re-stated all of the previous months statements. That is in fact the more accurate reflection of the effect of the cuts. One example of these cuts is the cut to 15% for the lowest bracket is retroactive to Jan 1. 2007.

This method, while more accurate, is definitely costlier. More manpower to redo a number of monthly financials, etc. By taking the hit in one month the Government saves us money.

There isn't a trend here. The Department of Finance web site has all the information to substantiate what I am saying.

Tradeoff?

The most desperate of the Liberal shills try and make yet another mountain out of a molehill.

Remember, we are still on track for a bigger surplus in fiscal 2008 than we enjoyed in fiscal 2007.

IIRC a certain poster started threads about the last surplus being too high and CPC hyprocrisy for doing so....

The Liberals, talk about a gang that is shooting blanks.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

I agree with the tax cuts already announced. Yet, with a possible economic downturn looming further tax cuts appear to be ill advised. Harper has warned us the upcoming budget will be lean and mean. So let's not get too excited about the possibility of new tax cuts until the budget is brought down.

IMO not enough has been done to reduce program spending. The problem is that Canadians have got so used to all the federal social programs it would be extremely difficult for any government to take the candy away from them. We've just been too spoiled. And now Canadians appear to want vast financial investments on the environment. In effect, are most Canadians not asking that the government stop running surpluses?

As a Conservative I want Harper to bite the bullet on some of these programs but I doubt it can happen as long as he is in a minority situation. And should the Liberals be elected I think tax and spend would once again re-visit us. Here's a sampling of Dion's plans:

You focused on the spending programs of the Liberals but on none of the ones the Tories are presently spending on and will continue to spend on. And as a Tory, your focus is cutting social programs only.

The last time we started running deficits, it was the Liberals who cut back the spending not the Tories. And as far as tax cuts go, the cuts in the Martin budget easily surpassed the first two budgets the Tories presented.

I agree with you that spending has to be reduced. That is why I find it strange that a military school long closed in Quebec is revived by the Tories. It seems odd for the Tories to be investing $600 million in Via Rail when the Liberals cancelled that. Neither of these are social programs and both had been previously cut. Where are the Tory spending cuts? Where is the belt tightening? Surely in over two years the government could at least meet its promise not to go over a certain percentage in spending annually.

Edited December 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

The last time we started running deficits, it was the Liberals who cut back the spending not the Tories. And as far as tax cuts go, the cuts in the Martin budget easily surpassed the first two budgets the Tories presented.

Yet another argument that is 180 degrees shy of heaven.

The Mulroney Government was the first Government in Canada in over a decade to run an operating surplus. (Basically spending less than was coming in before paying interest on the debt.)

There were numerous spending cuts from Michael Wilson and Maz.

Paulie Martin did a great job in continuing the trends of spending cuts he inherited.

[Shakeyhands]

That is the title I had in the beginning.

Sorry, I meant to have said slipping towards.... same difference though to be honest.

This is kind of like the Common Sense Revolution redux. Spend spend spend and cut cut cut... what ends up suffering at the end?

[jdobbin]

Sorry, I meant to have said slipping towards.... same difference though to be honest.

This is kind of like the Common Sense Revolution redux. Spend spend spend and cut cut cut... what ends up suffering at the end?

I think the word is deficit.

The right wing in the U.S. has been saying there isn't anything to worry about deficits. The problem is that they eventually have to be paid. I'd hate to think that Tories are going to take a cavalier attitude towards deficits. They should get their spending under control and try to avoid any more silly tax cuts like the GST.

Edited December 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

I did some research on the US and Canada debt and what i found was the US debt is 9 TRILLION and growing, interes is about 1.41 BILLION a day. WOW!!! Canada by the debt clock is/was 736,132. BILLION ( it was changing while copying the numbers) We are paying out 95MiL a day. I thought the debt was down to 481.5 Bil but I guess with the tax cuts and the military equipment the spending spree, its up!!

[Wilber]

I did some research on the US and Canada debt and what i found was the US debt is 9 TRILLION and growing, interes is about 1.41 BILLION a day. WOW!!! Canada by the debt clock is/was 736,132. BILLION ( it was changing while copying the numbers) We are paying out 95MiL a day. I thought the debt was down to 481.5 Bil but I guess with the tax cuts and the military equipment the spending spree, its up!!

You mean the clock that has right above it?

Oh, and just to be clear, this clock measures the total of federal, provincial and municipal debt & tax.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Wilber

[Michael Bluth]

Is there a link to this clock?

Canada by the debt clock is/was 736,132. BILLION ( it was changing while copying the numbers) We are paying out 95MiL a day. I thought the debt was down to 481.5 Bil

The Federal debt is probably about $460 billion right now. Scheduled to be down to $457.3 billion on March 31st. Link

Amazingly the debt figure for the Federal government, isn't exactly the same as the debt figure for all levels of Government in Canada.

Look at the numbers people.

If Harper had spent an extra QUARTER TRILLION dollars in the last two years that would have been more than an extra 5 MILLION dollars PER PERSON.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jbg]

If Harper had spent an extra QUARTER TRILLION dollars in the last two years that would have been more than an extra 5 MILLION dollars PER PERSON.

Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics.

[BubberMiley]

If Harper had spent an extra QUARTER TRILLION dollars in the last two years that would have been more than an extra 5 MILLION dollars PER PERSON.

Do you know what a trillion is? There is a U.S. and a British definition (which seems ridiculous to me). The one you are likely referring to is 1 followed by 12 zeroes. The British one is 1 followed by 18 zeroes, which is so high a number it's almost useless in terms of reference to dollars.

Do the math based on that, you'll find the per-Canadian number you were seeking (based on 30 million Canadians) to be precisely $8,333.33.

I don't think my stoner math needs the benefit of a larger font though.

Edited December 23, 2007 by BubberMiley

[Michael Bluth]

Do you know what a trillion is? There is a U.S. and a British definition (which seems ridiculous to me). The one you are likely referring to is 1 followed by 12 zeroes. The British one is 1 followed by 18 zeroes, which is so high a number it's almost useless in terms of reference to dollars.

Do the math based on that, you'll find the per-Canadian number you were seeking (based on 30 million Canadians) to be precisely $8,333.33.

I don't think my stoner math needs the benefit of a larger font though.

OK, the Federal debt is $460 billion dollars.

Topaz mistakenly believed it was $736 billion dollars.

The difference is $276 billion dollars. More than a quarter trillion dollars.

Topaz said with the 'tax cuts and military equipment' the debt was up by that much.

Meaning the Conservatives would have to have increased the debt by more than $5 million per citizen over the last two years.

That's completely unrealistic.

[BubberMiley]

Topaz said with the 'tax cuts and military equipment' the debt was up by that much.

Meaning the Conservatives would have to have increased the debt by more than $5 million per citizen over the last two years.

That's completely unrealistic.

That's just because you still don't get the math part.

[madmax]

I have to wonder about the bold talk, tough love, and macho talk that comes from some forum members, and then to think that someone went running to mommy when he didn't like the thread title.

I'm tellin, I'm telling on you Jdobbin.

You are a bad boy :angry:

Ok, so what's the big deal.

One monthly deficit?

Good article, and if the past is any measure, our federal finances will continue to diminish with Flaherty. But it hasn't happened yet.

But really, I think with the way this thread title was initially portrayed.

I would have had a petition ready to ban jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

I have to wonder about the bold talk, tough love, and macho talk that comes from some forum members, and then to think that someone went running to mommy when he didn't like the thread title.

Not quite getting your point.

Should there be two sets of rules for posters here?

Trolling is against the rules. That appears to be the reason the title was changed. Bravo to the mods for enforcing the rules.