Deficit Balloons to 101 Billion

[nicky10013]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/693808

Should make an election quite a bit more interesting.

[Smallc]

nvrmnd.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Smallc

[Dave_ON]

"But restraining the growth in government spending will still mean tough choices for the government," Flaherty said. "It will require decisions of government that won't always be popular or pain-free."

Indeed, I'm sure we'll shortly hear an announcement that 24 Sussex drive and the Trans Canada Highway are both up for auction. I just love Flahertynomics.

[nicky10013]

Indeed, I'm sure we'll shortly hear an announcement that 24 Sussex drive and the Trans Canada Highway are both up for auction. I just love Flahertynomics.

Just adds to the Liberal argument that these guys are incompetent. First the video comes out showing two-face Stevie and this second blow? Good day for the opposition.

[waldo]

Indeed, I'm sure we'll shortly hear an announcement that 24 Sussex drive and the Trans Canada Highway are both up for auction. I just love Flahertynomics.

oh c'mon... Conservatives would never go that far - next thing you'll be telling us Atomic Energy of Canada is on the block at fire-sale prices... during an economic and medical crisis. That's crazy talk... Conservatives would never go that far - surely?

[jdobbin]

Certainly what the Tories will do is blame this all on the Liberals.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...dget-trash.aspx

But this update does confirm that Flaherty's projections are best written in pencil with a stockpile of handy erasers, hardly the sort of record that instills confidence in the party billing itself as the best economic managers on the ballot.

With this update, the Conservatives might as well ship off their 2009 budget to the pulp fiction aisle of the nearest Chapters along with their book of policy principles. A party whose leader pledged never to run a deficit now calls the $5 billion hole it will have in 2015 a "manageable" shortfall.

What's worse is knowing an election eve forecast has obviously been given a high-gloss polish. This may be a ugly report, but it's the prettiest scenario the department could produce.

[August1991]

The OP's title is misleading - the $101 billion total refers to the federal government deficit over the next two years. IOW, $50 billion annual deficit on average.

I was more disturbed to learn that Flaherty believes our federal government will be in deficit until 2015:

In the budget, Flaherty had predicted that the government would begin running budget surpluses again in 2013-14 but he now says there will be an $11.2 billion deficit that year, followed by another deficit of $5.2 billion the following year.

If, for macroeconomic reasons, Flaherty wants to run a federal government deficit then I have no problem. In general, I don't care about government deficits. I care far more about government spending. What's Flaherty doing with all that money?

----

Meanwhile, south of the border:

U.S. faces deficit of $1.6 trillion

Toronto Star

Our federal government's $50 billion annual deficit is one third (on a per capita basis) of the US federal government's deficit.

[bTW, Obama's projections have a way of being optimistic.]

Edited September 11, 2009 by August1991

[nicky10013]

The OP's title is misleading - the $101 billion total refers to the federal government deficit over the next two years. IOW, $50 billion annual deficit on average.

I was more disturbed to learn that Flaherty believe's our federal government will be in deficit until 2015:

If, for macroeconomic reasons, Flaherty wants to run a federal government deficit then I have no problem. I don't care about government deficits. I care far more about government spending. What's Flaherty doing with all that money?

----

Meanwhile, south of the border:

Toronto Star

Our federal government's $50 billion annual deficit is one third (on a per capita basis) of the US federal government's deficit.

[bTW, Obama's projections have a way of being optimistic.]

Yes, I was a little deceptive but you are as well. Let's be honest here, this 1/3rd debt ratio compared to the US is completely misleading, too. Their bureaucratic system is bloated and spends way too much in the first place. Oh, and I forgot, they're fighting two wars.

[Topaz]

Why do the Tories do that...compared our debt load to Britian or the US?? I think most Candians only CARE about the CANADIAN debt load? The guilt in having the debt so high and they are trying to make it look not so bad. How stupid does the polticans think voters are? To get this debt down any government would have to go to higher taxes, cut spending or sell crown property. They also would freeze wages for a time. The largest spending has to be the military and this war. and isn't there some outstanding bills on the military equipment in the near future? The opposition party can't really say what they are going to do because they really don't know the TRUE financial balance and I think that should come out 1oo% before any election.

[August1991]

Why do the Tories do that...compared our debt load to Britian or the US?? I think most Candians only CARE about the CANADIAN debt load? The guilt in having the debt so high and they are trying to make it look not so bad.

Topaz, it is not the debt that matters.

The question is how much governments spend in our name. Politicians (governments) spend other people's money. When you spend other people's money, deficits and debt don't matter.

If you spend other people's money, the only question is how much can you spend?

----

Topaz, I thank you for making this obvious point plain to me.

Edited September 11, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I was more disturbed to learn that Flaherty believes our federal government will be in deficit until 2015:

It won't stop you from voting Tory, right?

[Smallc]

If you spend other people's money, the only question is how much can you spend?

That may be how you do things, but I would hope at least some of our government do a bit better.

[Molly]

"Mr. Flaherty has a credibility problem..." said Ignatieff.

There's the understatement of the decade!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Minister of Finance is not the government, nor is he the leader of the government and his credibility has far less consequence than that of the Prime Minister. If the Liberals plan on a head hunting expedition and try and take some of the governments ministers on to suggest bad judgment on the part of the Prime Minister in his choices for cabinet members, he will need to be touting alternatives. It seems like a large plan, not what I would have expected.

[Molly]

Jerry, to suggest that the quality of ministers has no bearing on the quality of the government, or on the credibility of the guy who chose them (and who chose him) ... is stunning.

What's more, any suggestion that the actions and predictions of the finance minister are not highly representative of the government itself, it's strategies, both political and managerial, and its competence .... is equally stunning.

'Unacceptably bad' is just that- unacceptably bad.

An old volleyball coach of mine used to say, "If what you are doing isn't working, try something else. " (In binary terms, the only available change in outcome is 'better'.)

Edited September 11, 2009 by Molly

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Jerry, to suggest that the quality of ministers has no bearing on the quality of the government, or on the credibility of the guy who chose them (and who chose him) ... is stunning.

What's more, any suggestion that the actions and predictions of the finance minister are not highly representative of the government itself, it's strategies, both political and managerial, and its competence .... is equally stunning.

'Unacceptably bad' is just that- unacceptably bad.

An old volleyball coach of mine used to say, "If what you are doing isn't working, try something else. " (The only available change in outcome is 'better'.)

Molly I didn't suggest that at all. I stated very clearly that "his credibility has far less consequence than that of the Prime Minister" I then followed that up with a comment that any plan to take on ministers one at a time was complex and something that I did not expect them to do.

Perhaps what I should have said was that it seems to me to be a waste of time going after the little fish for Iggy. He needs to keep his eye on the target during this hunt and the target is Steve Harper.

[Molly]

Fair enough.

I wouldn't take that tip of the hat to Flaherty and his financial management as an indication that there will be such a dispersed target, though, should an election be forthcoming.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fair enough.

I wouldn't take that tip of the hat to Flaherty and his financial management as an indication that there will be such a dispersed target, though, should an election be forthcoming.

I think there is no doubt an election is indeed coming, but for Iggy to take the entire cabinet on one at a time seems like a stretch to me be because there simply isn't enough time during the election cycle to do the job right. So I would suggest that it was merely a sideswipe on the minister.