jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ew_post&f=3 Private-sector consulting firm IHS-Global Insight says there is only 15 per cent chance that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty will be able to balance the federal books in 2013-2014, as the budget projects.And given that the budget makes no provision for a more severe recession or a more modest recovery, a second slump, or any additional government spending or tax cuts for the next half-decade, IHS-Global Insight's Dale Orr says it's reasonable to expect Ottawa could remain in deficit beyond 2020. "The very same political pressures that forced the government to produce a fiscal stimulus package of $19 billion instead of about half that amount could very well pressure it to run small deficits consistently after the economic recovery of 2012," Orr says. I don't that Flaherty can be trusted to forecast the deficit at all since only a month or so ago, he was saying no deficit was possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ew_post&f=3I don't that Flaherty can be trusted to forecast the deficit at all since only a month or so ago, he was saying no deficit was possible. Why would anybody be surprised that Flaherty would miss his targets. When he was Ontario Finance Minister, he said Ontario had a balanced budget. Then days later the Fraser Institute revealed he was hiding a $7billion deficit. Last April (2008) he started making speeches about not returning to a Liberal deficit. Why would he make a speech like that? I had suspected he was already creating a Conservative deficit and by August it happened. $15billion surplus gone - in true right-wing style. And that's before the recession hit. Edited February 3, 2009 by daniel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 A lawyer (political) has one purpose and one skill only. That skill and purpose is to decieve. That is the very nature of lawless law makers and givers and quazi enforcers. So why are you surprised....It's like asking a snake that you save from a fire, why he bit you on the wrist...The snake replys - "I am a snake and that is what I do"..time for maturity and the embracement of reality - Liars are liars and never never expect them to tell the truth - the truth does not serve their best interests...NEVER! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I don't that Flaherty can be trusted to forecast the deficit at all since only a month or so ago, he was saying no deficit was possible.The question is not the size of the federal deficit or surplus. It is not a question of whether the federal, uh, appendage is above or below water level.---- The question is how much crap the federal government is buying on our behalf - regardless of how it pays for the crap. Whether borrowed or on debit, it's still crap we don't need - and it's still our money. When it comes to other people's money, deficit/surplus is a meaningless question. The question is rather: do we want/need this stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 it's still crap we don't need For the hundredth time, Canada has an infrastructure deficit. This isn't crap we don't need. This is building for the future. It makes us more competitive and increases productivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I don't that Flaherty can be trusted to forecast the deficit at all since only a month or so ago, he was saying no deficit was possible.We will have deficits for at least 10 years but no finance minister would ever admit that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Why would anybody be surprised that Flaherty would miss his targets. When he was Ontario Finance Minister, he said Ontario had a balanced budget. Then days later the Fraser Institute revealed he was hiding a $7billion deficit. Some Tory supporters continue to say Flaherty didn't run deficits in Ontario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 We will have deficits for at least 10 years but no finance minister would ever admit that. Why will we have deficits for 10 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 When it comes to other people's money, deficit/surplus is a meaningless question. The question is rather: do we want/need this stuff? I realize your solution is probably to privatize health, highways and probably the military but the question is: Is that what Canadians want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Why will we have deficits for 10 years?Because the global economy is headed for at least 10 years of slow/non-existant growth. Deficits are never eliminated by spending cuts - they are always eliminated by increased revenue due to economic growth. No growth - no surplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 I realize your solution is probably to privatize health, highways and probably the military but the question is: Is that what Canadians want? Other than health care I doubt many Canadians care who runs these things as long as they are run efficently and they continue to have the same or greater access to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Because the global economy is headed for at least 10 years of slow/non-existant growth. Deficits are never eliminated by spending cuts - they are always eliminated by increased revenue due to economic growth. No growth - no surplus. The World Bank and IMF don't think we are in for 10 years of slow or non-existent growth. So my question again is why says deficits are going to be 10 years long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted February 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Other than health care I doubt many Canadians care who runs these things as long as they are run efficently and they continue to have the same or greater access to them. So you think the military would be better if private interests ran it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 So you think the military would be better if private interests ran it? The Commander in Chief could be the CEO of Exxon Mobile.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ew_post&f=3I don't that Flaherty can be trusted to forecast the deficit at all since only a month or so ago, he was saying no deficit was possible. I find it absurd that he is forecasting anything beyond two years from now. No one has any fricking clue what is going to happen. Three months ago, this joker was saying that our budget would be balanced and we wouldn't run a deficit. The Conservatives also said that this global economy wouldn't really effect Canada that much. So now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe that Flaherty can predict anything past July? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyStone Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Other than health care I doubt many Canadians care who runs these things as long as they are run efficently and they continue to have the same or greater access to them. Well, there are certain things that government ownership brings with it. For instance, government has a mandate beyond profit. They also want to make sure that they are a model employer, that they don't damage the environment, and that they don't risk people's lives in the pursuit of profit. Unfortunately, government also brings some baggage. If the government of Canada killed as many people as Maple Leaf meats - you can be assured that they would be paying a lot more than what Maple Leaf is paying. The other negative, is that government ownership means unions - and as we know, unions mean higher than necessary wages, benefits, worse productivity, and zero flexibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) For the hundredth time, Canada has an infrastructure deficit. This isn't crap we don't need. This is building for the future. It makes us more competitive and increases productivity.Various governments are taking about 50% of what an average Canadian earns and spending it.WTF do you mean that there is an "infrastructure deficit"? Well, we may have an "infrastructure deficit", but that's not our problem. Rather, we have an ex-spouse who has access to our credit and debit cards. Politicians and bureaucrats spend other people's money and when that happens, everything changes. We get crap we don't want or we never see and we have horrendous bills. ----- Smallc, working Canadians give on average about half of their money to governments. Please don't argue that they must give more because there is some kind of "deficit". Edited February 3, 2009 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 So now, suddenly, we're supposed to believe that Flaherty can predict anything past July? When I saw Harper's first cabinet with Flaherty, Baird and Clement; I thought, man are we in trouble. Not only did he bring the wolves into the henhouse, he put them in charge of it. Did he really think they wouldn't eat the chickens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Last April (2008) he started making speeches about not returning to a Liberal deficit.... And that's before the recession hit. What was he talking about? The last huge deficit was left by Mulroney. Also if you read his economic statement he hid our exisiting deficit behind the projected sale of assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Smallc, working Canadians give on average about half of their money to governments. Please don't argue that they must give more because there is some kind of "deficit". You're right. There's some magic date in August when the average Canadian starts working for themselves, so it might be more than 50% Ah, death and taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Progressive Tory Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Other than health care I doubt many Canadians care who runs these things as long as they are run efficently and they continue to have the same or greater access to them. Private prisons would be another area of concern. When anything becomes for profit, safe practices take a back seat. Also, in private prisons there is no motivation for rehabilitation. They don't want you to get out, and certainly don't want you to stay out. That one concerns me greatly. We tried that in Ontario and it failed miserably. Stephen Harper opens door to prison privatization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 You're right. There's some magic date in August when the average Canadian starts working for themselves, so it might be more than 50% In 2008, tax freedom day came on June 14. Saturday is tax freedom day, says think tankUpdated Fri. Jun. 13 2008 9:24 AM ET The Canadian Press VANCOUVER -- Tax freedom day -- the day average Canadians have paid off the year's tax load and begin working for themselves -- arrives Saturday, according to the Fraser Institute. The free-market-oriented think-tank said today that governments are letting the citizenry keep four days' worth of earnings more than last year. ---- It varies by provinces. * Alberta on May 28 * New Brunswick on June 3 * Prince Edward Island June 4 * Manitoba June 8 * Ontario June 9 * Nova Scotia June 12 * British Columbia June 13 * Quebec June 19 * Saskatchewan June 20 * Newfoundland and Labrador June 30 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories From the info I've seen, Canadians pay around 45% of their income on taxes. We're definitely over taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 We're definitely over taxed. Maybe, maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 For the hundredth time, Canada has an infrastructure deficit. This isn't crap we don't need. This is building for the future. It makes us more competitive and increases productivity. Paying people to resod their lawns increases productivity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 3, 2009 Report Share Posted February 3, 2009 Some Tory supporters continue to say Flaherty didn't run deficits in Ontario. Flaherty ran a deficit in his final year. The Liberals who followed him lied about it to make it seem worse, then greatly enlarged it even while greatly increasing taxes. They used the increased funding not to pay down the deficit but to buy off public sector unions, including the doctors and nurses and teachers - who stopped complaining about health care and education problems the instant they got fat raises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.