2009 Deficit could hit $14 billion

[blueblood]

No argument on cutting salaries 10%. Harper was in increasing those and hiring the entire two years he was in office.

Unless you open the constitution, there is no way to do anything on the Senate. Don't do it unless you want everyone and their dog to open up that can of worms.

Healthcare is federal/provincial issue. It is another can of worms. Easier to cut cap transfer payments and let the provinces find ways of better managing their systems.

No arguments on simplifying the tax system. I'd eliminate tax credits for a range of things in favour of a straight tax cut.

Exactly, they would save money. No argument on the complexities of the matters. I know full well the dangers of it, it would in the end save a lot of money.

[Smallc]

* The first scenario, in which the economy slows but avoids a recession, yields a deficit of $7 billion in 2009-10 and $5.4 billion in 2010-11.

* The second, involving a mild recession in 2009, yields deficits of $12.6 billion in 2009-10 and $20.5 billion in 2010-11.

* The third, involving a deeper recession, yields a deficit of $19 billion in 2009-10 and $31.3 billion in 2010-11.

* The fourth, involving a major recession and slower recovery, yields a deficit of $27.9 billion in 2009-10 and $46.8 billion in 2010-11.

CBC

I certainly hope they're wrong. If not, we're in for far more trouble than I anticipated.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Not bad at all, maybe a stepped reduction in salaries.

I don't agree with the health care idea however, I believe that two tier ends up costing more (same with privitized) at the end of the day.

Not when the private health clinics are paying taxes when they open up a practice. However to have this would require a salary cap adjusted for inflation in order to ensure everyone gets health care. Millionaires have no place in a soup kitchen. Dobbin is right, should be done on a provincial level.

[blueblood]

CBC

I certainly hope they're wrong. If not, we're in for far more trouble than I anticipated.

Harper wouldn't let it get to 30 and 47 billion dollars, that would be political suicide. He is going to have a hard enough time explaining 4 to 5 billion in two years.

[Smallc]

Harper wouldn't let it get to 30 and 47 billion dollars, that would be political suicide. He is going to have a hard enough time explaining 4 to 5 billion in two years.

I think so too, I just hope we're right.

[Mr.Canada]

The deficit will be 4 Billion this year and around 1.5 next year. This is to ensure we can pull out of this. Canada is still much better off than the rest of the world is.

Obama is getting ready to run a deficit of $1 Trillion dollars, so in retrospect 4 Billion is nothing.

[Argus]

Harper wouldn't let it get to 30 and 47 billion dollars, that would be political suicide. He is going to have a hard enough time explaining 4 to 5 billion in two years.

Yearly deficits during the last big recession were in the $30-$40billion range, and economists say that a recession is not the time to either raise taxes or cut government spending. So.....

[jdobbin]

The deficit will be 4 Billion this year and around 1.5 next year. This is to ensure we can pull out of this. Canada is still much better off than the rest of the world is.

And if it is $20 billion in deficit next year, we will hear why deficits are not such a big deal and how Harper is being pragmatic about having them for a few more years.

[Oleg Bach]

Whats the difference between racking up a debt and racking up a deficit? Is the term deficit just a nice way of saying the government is taking a loan from the public without their permission? The money has to be paid back by someone. You would think that our public servants in Ottawa would have at least asked us if they could have some more money through the implimentation of a deficit. But no - they mismanaged and now they want a bail out - This deficit thing as akin to a near admission that our federals and provincials have bankrupted the nation.

[craiger]

Whats the difference between racking up a debt and racking up a deficit? Is the term deficit just a nice way of saying the government is taking a loan from the public without their permission? The money has to be paid back by someone. You would think that our public servants in Ottawa would have at least asked us if they could have some more money through the implimentation of a deficit. But no - they mismanaged and now they want a bail out - This deficit thing as akin to a near admission that our federals and provincials have bankrupted the nation.

Over lets say 20 years a $35billion dollar debt we can expect to pay $185billion in interest alone, great deal for the private banks Epic fail for taxpayers. Debts usually get paid off deficits other hand we just pay the interest for ever.