TD Bank Predicts Billion Dollar Deficit in 2009/2010

[JB Globe]

Is anyone surprised? Flaherty is just continuing the policies he started in Ontario working as Harris' finance Minister. Apparently, he's not one to learn from his own mistakes. His cuts gutted the school system, health care, transit, and lead to scandals like Walkterton. His tax cuts helped only the rich - the middle class shrunk during the Tory years in Ontario, the rich saw their incomes increase while the size of the poor grew and their average incomes dropped. And, they still managed to leave a $4 billion deficit while experiencing an economic boom.

I'm afraid that he's not the kind of guy to admit to and learn from his screw-ups. After all, there were plans to sell off LCBO stores and use the cash to hide the deficit in the budget (the sale would've been worth billions) . . . Of course, that would've meant a reduction nearly $1 billion a year in annual revenue, meaning the province would've been loosing money on the sale in a few years.

[charter.rights]

Is anyone surprised? Flaherty is just continuing the policies he started in Ontario working as Harris' finance Minister. Apparently, he's not one to learn from his own mistakes. His cuts gutted the school system, health care, transit, and lead to scandals like Walkterton. His tax cuts helped only the rich - the middle class shrunk during the Tory years in Ontario, the rich saw their incomes increase while the size of the poor grew and their average incomes dropped. And, they still managed to leave a $4 billion deficit while experiencing an economic boom.

I'm afraid that he's not the kind of guy to admit to and learn from his screw-ups. After all, there were plans to sell off LCBO stores and use the cash to hide the deficit in the budget (the sale would've been worth billions) . . . Of course, that would've meant a reduction nearly $1 billion a year in annual revenue, meaning the province would've been loosing money on the sale in a few years.

Historically the Conservatives have left government with greater deficits than any other party. They might say they are cutting programs but in reality they are simply diverting cash towards the sectors that are friendly to them. Can you imagine how much deeper in debt they would have left us if they had not cut programs as part of their plan? They're hiding the fact that they are stealing money from taxpayers and using for their own purposes.

Flaherty is involved because he his Harper's patsy, just like he was to Harris. Behind every corporate fraud there is a slimy CFO.

Alta4ever,

The reason we need a strong central government is because provinces can't be trusted to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians. The purpose of that government is to redistribute the wealth, taking from the have provinces and giving it to the have nots, so that we can all prosper as a country. Without a federal government involvement provinces would become regionally divided and places like Edmonton and Calgary might prosper while smaller communities would have no say.

Edited March 30, 2008 by charter.rights

[August1991]

August, what do you make of the uncontrollable spending by the Tories? Is it a plan? Is it an accident? Does it come with cuts? What? Be honest.

Dobbin, do you sincerely believe that if Dion, Rae & crew got into power, that they would reduce government spending? Bob Rae?

If Dion formed a minority government relying on Layton NDP support, federal government spending would balloon. You know it, I know it and anyone politcally knowledgeable in Canada knows it.

Harper is the best we've got at the moment. In the past federal budget, federal spending is projected to grow more slowly than projected economic growth.

Harper is responsible for choosing to give a vastly disproportionate amount of money to Quebec. That's why Duceppe voted for the budget.

Drop the Quebec bashing. Ontario and the others got a big chunk of the largesse too.

Is anyone surprised? Flaherty is just continuing the policies he started in Ontario working as Harris' finance Minister. Apparently, he's not one to learn from his own mistakes. His cuts gutted the school system, health care, transit, and lead to scandals like Walkterton. His tax cuts helped only the rich - the middle class shrunk during the Tory years in Ontario, the rich saw their incomes increase while the size of the poor grew and their average incomes dropped. And, they still managed to leave a $4 billion deficit while experiencing an economic boom.

Blah, blah, blah.

Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and George W. Bush are in fact the same person - the Devil Incarnate. They eat little kittens when the cameras aren't around. (JB Globe, I'll put you down as someone who will never vote for Harper. I hate to break this to you, but to become PM of a majority government, he doesn't need unanimous support.)

Most people in Canada don't care about old Ontario political disputes, and I suspect that most potential Tory voters in Ontario probably have a favourable opinion of Mike Harris. Harris, after all, was elected premier twice.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin, do you sincerely believe that if Dion, Rae & crew got into power, that they would reduce government spending? Bob Rae?

I actually thinking a bit different on what Bob Rae might be like. Business must be thinking the same thing because he is lining up some business heavyweights behind him.

If Dion formed a minority government relying on Layton NDP support, federal government spending would balloon. You know it, I know it and anyone politcally knowledgeable in Canada knows it.

Given what Liberal spending was for the majority of the years post Mulroney, I doubt you can be certain of anything.

Harper is the best we've got at the moment. In the past federal budget, federal spending is projected to grow more slowly than projected economic growth.

We have seen Harper's budgets blow past each forecast by a wide margin and we are not even into an election yet. I can imagine the spending there.

[Alta4ever]

What evidence do you have that the national standard will not indeed be a lot lower if provinces set them. Maybe a few provinces will think that removing social services as making them more competitive. Some might just not be able to afford them.

Well then thats for the people of that province to decide, who are you to think that you know better then the citizens?

[Alta4ever]

Historically the Conservatives have left government with greater deficits than any other party. They might say they are cutting programs but in reality they are simply diverting cash towards the sectors that are friendly to them. Can you imagine how much deeper in debt they would have left us if they had not cut programs as part of their plan? They're hiding the fact that they are stealing money from taxpayers and using for their own purposes.

Flaherty is involved because he his Harper's patsy, just like he was to Harris. Behind every corporate fraud there is a slimy CFO.

Alta4ever,

The reason we need a strong central government is because provinces can't be trusted to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians. The purpose of that government is to redistribute the wealth, taking from the have provinces and giving it to the have nots, so that we can all prosper as a country. Without a federal government involvement provinces would become regionally divided and places like Edmonton and Calgary might prosper while smaller communities would have no say.

I would love to see you prove this! As far as I know the Liberals are the only party that have been caught doing that. (adscam)

So provinces can't be trusted. What makes those in a central government so elite? How can some bureaucrat who has never left Ottawa know anything about what is good for any other province?

Edited March 30, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Keepitsimple]

Historically the Conservatives have left government with greater deficits than any other party. They might say they are cutting programs but in reality they are simply diverting cash towards the sectors that are friendly to them. Can you imagine how much deeper in debt they would have left us if they had not cut programs as part of their plan? They're hiding the fact that they are stealing money from taxpayers and using for their own purposes.

Flaherty is involved because he his Harper's patsy, just like he was to Harris. Behind every corporate fraud there is a slimy CFO.

Alta4ever,

The reason we need a strong central government is because provinces can't be trusted to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians. The purpose of that government is to redistribute the wealth, taking from the have provinces and giving it to the have nots, so that we can all prosper as a country. Without a federal government involvement provinces would become regionally divided and places like Edmonton and Calgary might prosper while smaller communities would have no say.

Hogwash!!! I don't necessarily agree with all of his views but Eric Margolis has this one down pat. Here's an article from 2000, written upon the death of Trudeau:

As now, when we watch the memory of Pierre Trudeau, who died last week, being cynically manipulated, grossly distorted, and cloyingly sentimentalized by his Liberal Party heirs to win votes in upcoming elections. Trudeau’s sainted ghost is to be used like the corpse of the Spanish hero, El Cid, strapped onto a horse and sent into battle.

Most Canadians have been brainwashed into believing the charming, charismatic Trudeau was a great prime minister who built a strong, prosperous, humane Canada that was morally and socially superior to the United States. This fable was charmingly echoed by the increasingly leftish Toronto Globe & Mail, in one of many weepy hagiographic tributes to St. Pierre: ‘PM Jean Chretien…considers himself the main defender of Mr Trudeau’s liberal vision of a just and compassionate Canada.’

Let me precisely quantify the costs of Trudeau’s ‘just and compassionate Canada,’ both for Canadians who wish to continue Trudeauismo, and for Americans who are being told by Democrats that socialized Canada offers a far more successful and humane culture than the USA:

*In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor who had never held a real job in his life to prime minister, Canada’s national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually. But this was just the beginning.

*Canada’s Great Helmsman created a vast bureaucracy, and massive welfare programs to buy votes for his Liberal Party. He restricted trade and free markets, imposing confiscatory taxes.

Trudeau drove Canada so far left that today’s opposition Canadian Alliance - a moderate centrist party by world standards - is routinely termed ‘rightwing’ or ‘far right.’ The state-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corp (which I call the Ministry of Truth), teachers unions, the monoculture leftiss academia, and left-leaning media keep brainwashing Canadians that high taxes and big government are good for Canada and the essence of national identity. Anyone who questions rule by bureaucracy, deficit spending, unlimited immigration, or social engineering is denounced as a far-right racist.

Full Article: http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2000/...eau_canadas.php

[jdobbin]

Well then thats for the people of that province to decide, who are you to think that you know better then the citizens?

Who are you to say that citizens would not have a choice in the matter? Maybe their province just couldn't have the same health, safety and social services because of the cost? How far down do you want standards to go? Is there no bottom for you in that regard?

Are you a total divest to the provinces person on the right? Does that mean separation is okay? Is that the Tory stand? I see you are a supporter of Alberta. Is you goal to separate, break up the country?

Edited March 30, 2008 by jdobbin

[Cameron]

Good post KIS.

I think we should remember that governments are made up of people, people like me and you....so what right do they have to distribute my money....socialism is a big computer somewhere, it's just more people moving more of my earned money around.

Small government, less spending.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Cameron

[HistoryBuff44]

The reason we need a strong central government is because provinces can't be trusted to look out for the interests of ALL Canadians. The purpose of that government is to redistribute the wealth, taking from the have provinces and giving it to the have nots, so that we can all prosper as a country. Without a federal government involvement provinces would become regionally divided and places like Edmonton and Calgary might prosper while smaller communities would have no say.

Im sorry, but i gotta say this... this is a true socialist opinion if I ever read one... The provinces cant be trusted to look out for the interests of all? they werent supposed to... thats why they are provincial governments to look out for the interests of the provinces people. One entity trying to cover and be responsible for everything is how so many things get left undone. it's why myriads of things get lumped into the same bills and thus useless things get passed or good things dont.

[Alta4ever]

Im sorry, but i gotta say this... this is a true socialist opinion if I ever read one... The provinces cant be trusted to look out for the interests of all? they werent supposed to... thats why they are provincial governments to look out for the interests of the provinces people. One entity trying to cover and be responsible for everything is how so many things get left undone. it's why myriads of things get lumped into the same bills and thus useless things get passed or good things dont.

Excellent

[Drea]

Im sorry, but i gotta say this... this is a true socialist opinion if I ever read one...

Don't be sorry, we live in a socialist country (thankfully). If you or any other family member has ever used a government service, then you have partaken in our social democracy.

The provinces cant be trusted to look out for the interests of all? they werent supposed to... thats why they are provincial governments to look out for the interests of the provinces people. One entity trying to cover and be responsible for everything is how so many things get left undone. it's why myriads of things get lumped into the same bills and thus useless things get passed or good things dont.

A few years back Klein rolled back social service amounts for families and single parents (before the explosion of the oilsands boom when a huge amount of Albertans were on welfare) What happened to those people? Did they rush out and find a decent paying job? No, they moved to provinces that had better social service networks (many came to BC).

So when provinces all have differing social services people will move to the province with the most benefits. All this serves to do is move poor people around, doesn't do a thing to help them get OFF the system.

[noahbody]

TD Bank's latest economic projections see the government suffering a $1.1-billion shortfall in the 2009-10 fiscal year

I have mutual funds with TD. They're not exactly the best at having their predictions come true.

Also, since Harper saved up to $20 Billion not adhering to the Kyoto credit scheme, he's still in the black.

[jdobbin]

Also, since Harper saved up to $20 Billion not adhering to the Kyoto credit scheme, he's still in the black.

Harper obviously needed the money for his "excessive spending" programs.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...70-e7213069bd54

Dale Orr, chief economist at Global Insight, called the growth in spending "grossly excessive," noting that the Conservative government was committed to keeping its spending to within the nominal or non-inflation adjusted growth in the economy, which was 5.7 per cent in 2007 and is projected to be just 3.5 per cent in 2008.

[MSH]

Don't be sorry, we live in a socialist country (thankfully). If you or any other family member has ever used a government service, then you have partaken in our social democracy.

A few years back Klein rolled back social service amounts for families and single parents (before the explosion of the oilsands boom when a huge amount of Albertans were on welfare) What happened to those people? Did they rush out and find a decent paying job? No, they moved to provinces that had better social service networks (many came to BC).

So when provinces all have differing social services people will move to the province with the most benefits. All this serves to do is move poor people around, doesn't do a thing to help them get OFF the system.

Well, I say if any municipality, province, or country for that matter, wishes to enact policies designed to attract freeloaders then let them deal with the consequences. Incidentally, you are lying when you say Klein rolled back social assistance for "families and single parents". These reductions in "benefits" were quite heavily weighted towards single adults, and some families with two non-working parents saw reductions as well. The single mothers that socialists like to weep over saw basically no change in their "benefits".

Back in the days of the last stock market bubble, when oil was in the $15 to $25/barrel range and we were in the midst of the last stock market bubble bursting it was a wise policy move to encourage those capable of working to leave welfare roles one way or another. When money is tight and your credit card is near its limit you don't do something as foolish as lend money to an addict to feed his addiction. If a welfare case would rather move far away to avoid having to work rather than find a job what good is that for the person or this province? The welfare case gets no incentive to quit his addiction to welfare and the province gets further in debt supporting a welfare addict.

So, say Alberta cuts its welfare again and BC gets more welfare cases than it can handle, so then BC changed its own welfare rules, so they move to Saskatchewan, and then it happens there too. Eventually there would be nowhere in Canada that can afford to support the welfare addicts and they'll have to actually face their addiction to welfare (What else are they going to do, move to Sweden? What nation in the world, even comfortable socialist nations, would admit a chronic welfare case as a resident or citizen?), and furthermore it would make provinces take proper responsibility for the problem and find real solutions to the root causes of welfare dependence that best suit the special requirements of each province.

I really don't see the point in all this hand-wringing over the plight of welfare addicts. Welfare is (well, was supposed to be) an emergency measure to help people out of times of trouble--something that would provide assistance for a period of weeks to a year or two. Other programmes are, or should be, instituted to assist single parents or those with long term or permanent illness and disability. I think that the creation of a large, centrally-administered socialist bureaucracy at best masks the issue by absolving the provinces of their responsibilities at best, and at worst it creates a growing segment of the population that is needlessly dependent on handouts.

[HistoryBuff44]

Don't be sorry, we live in a socialist country (thankfully). If you or any other family member has ever used a government service, then you have partaken in our social democracy.

Partaken to be sure, but ask yourself is it by choice or force? where is the option? Every nation is socialist to some degree or other; even the US. Its a question of how far down that road do you go, true and complete socialism doesnt work, it destroys the bulk of a populations' incentive and desire to excel at something of interest to them. Their beaurocracies become so inflated as to be almost useless, hence the need for near dictatorships in them to accomplish anything.

A few years back Klein rolled back social service amounts for families and single parents (before the explosion of the oilsands boom when a huge amount of Albertans were on welfare) What happened to those people? Did they rush out and find a decent paying job? No, they moved to provinces that had better social service networks (many came to BC).

So when provinces all have differing social services people will move to the province with the most benefits. All this serves to do is move poor people around, doesn't do a thing to help them get OFF the system.

He cut the guts out of programs to get the rampant deficit spending under control. now instead of spending billions on debt servicing costs that money can be used for those same programs; which are returning by the way and we dont have the debt (the oil boom just sped up the process he began).