50 billion debt per year 250 billion actual - debt is higher than reve

[William Ashley]

Three years of conservative administration led to 8 years of debt paydowns being whiped out, over 100 billion in new debt - and more in the books.

GST to pay down the debt - now all that GST for nothing - and now there is HST ontop of the GST.

Yet the conservatives are the #1 polling party - what is wrong with Canadians - how can they not see how irresponsible this government is with finances. The future of Canada has been trashed. Soon baby boomers will be in retirement depending on government payouts - but THERE IS NO MONEY - there is a lack of money - and it only gets worse with the more debt burdeon there is.

Canada's work force will decline - intakes and revenues will decline while outlays will increase.

all the payments since 1994 - and since GST was introduced - GONE, due to conservative spending.

It can only get worse. 50 billion per year in debt is too much. You can say, but it is a recession - well there have been recessions in the past without 50 billion debt paydowns - Canada is locked in orbit of the US economically anyway, Canada needn't do anything, it would still be in orbit. Too little too late, but why are Canadians accepting their futures being destroyed, the funds for their future healthcare burned away a decade before they are needed?

Edited July 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Topaz]

My own view is, this is what happens to a country when citizens vote for their party no matter how destructive that party is towards the country. Unless the Tories have a yard sale of Crown property there is no way this is going to be paid off. Just look what the Libs had to do to get the deficit gone from the Mulroney years. Now boomers are retiring and the taxes dollars going to be lower and Generation X is going to have to deal with this and while this government is in power the deficit will climb. The only thing I can understand why Harpr keeps his minority is the combination of West wanting to keep their guy in PMO no matter what and the rest of the voters not voting because of politics, itself, they feel their vote won't matter but in todays socirty it REALLY does! Please vote in the next election.

[Smallc]

GST to pay down the debt - now all that GST for nothing - and now there is HST ontop of the GST.

What? What?

Canada's work force will decline - intakes and revenues will decline while outlays will increase.

We'll see, that hasn't happened yet.

all the payments since 1994 - and since GST was introduced - GONE, due to conservative spending.

Not really. Our debt to GDP ratio is far lower than it was in 1994.

It can only get worse. 50 billion per year in debt is too much.

You're right. Good thing that budgets are coming in better than expected, and will not be $50B out of balance every year for the next 5 years.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My own view is, this is what happens to a country when citizens vote for their party no matter how destructive that party is towards the country. Unless the Tories have a yard sale of Crown property there is no way this is going to be paid off. Just look what the Libs had to do to get the deficit gone from the Mulroney years. Now boomers are retiring and the taxes dollars going to be lower and Generation X is going to have to deal with this and while this government is in power the deficit will climb. The only thing I can understand why Harpr keeps his minority is the combination of West wanting to keep their guy in PMO no matter what and the rest of the voters not voting because of politics, itself, they feel their vote won't matter but in todays socirty it REALLY does! Please vote in the next election.

All true, yet not all hope is lost. There are many things we can do to improve our position, yet damned near everything will have to be paid out of pocket so to speak, the days of borrowing need to be realized as long gone. Citizens need to remember that a government has huge resources to utilize which are far above and beyond the ability of financial institutions to compete with. It just takes a little effort and the support of the people.

We can fix this in relative short order but the partisan slant needs to be shimmed into level before we can move on. The time for politics is just before and during an election, after that what SHOULD happen is administrative effort. We need to change HOW we do things, not just what we do.

[William Ashley]

We'll see, that hasn't happened yet.

Wrong - it has. Oddly this is combined with unemployment - even worse.

Not really. Our debt to GDP ratio is far lower than it was in 1994.

The liberals paid down over 100 billion of debt. The conservatives spent it last year and this year. (they spent a decade of surpluses the year before) You know what - It is higher, but the population has increased - you can say - that "it ain't so bad" but the situation is it is 100 billion worse that is 1/6th (a 17% increase on debt load and it only took 2 years to do.. the biggest hike in public debt in all canada's history!!! This while someone stated as being an 'economist' was at the helm - no I think maybe he doesn't have the best intersts of canadians in mind - maybe it is just imperial oil) - and 200 billion is written into future debt this year also (another 34% debt load from 2008 - canada has to pay an additional 5 or 6 billion on this each year.. and its revenue is only 250 some billion to being with cutting 30 or so billion just to pay interest charges!). You can say - but we have more people now. THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO RETIREMENT 2020 (less than 10 years from now) 1 in 4 will be retired. 1 in four not working due to being too young and 1 in 10 to 20 or so unemployed.

that is 25% old 25% young 5-10% not working (who knows) not to mention the 10% that are disabled. this works out to atleast half the population of canada NOT CONTRIBUTING BUT INSTEAD TAKING from the economy (not wholely but partly as they are still spending - BUT they arn't earning as much probably)

this means of the 50% of the people left they will in large part be repsonsible for the close to trillion dollar debt.

selling revenue bearing properties taxes and increase debt becomes THE ONLY means of raising revenue - the point of no return .. its all over...

you have to CLUE IN, that it is actual per capita (as per contributors to potential productive contribution) that matter..

and that ratio is BOTTOMING OUT... it is crisis .. this is no joke... IT IS OVER>. all OVER!!! the fat lady is going into retirement.

You're right. Good thing that budgets are coming in better than expected, and will not be $50B out of balance every year for the next 5 years.

WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PER CAPTIA DEBT IN THE G8!!! (except for the US but they don't count)

--- PS the whole - but the opposition asked for us to shoot ourselves in the head-- doesn't count either... morons don't deserve to govern.

Also it is HOW it was spent that made it worse - non economic stimulating activities - massively offloading debt to municipalities - and infrastructure spending that isn't a federal responsibility.

(the only recourse is inflationary value) a difference of over 45% since 1994. that is each dollar back then is worth almost $2 today. If you earned 5$ an hour in 1994 you'd be earning nearly 10$ an hour in 2010 to have the same value for work done.

If you stashed $50,000 in 1994 for retirement it would be worth $25,000 today --- this however is not reflective of other valuations. 45% inflation --- WOW that is something right there.

IF YOU WERE AMERICAN!!!!

BUT WE ARN'T so geuss what WAKE UP... we are in debt big time and it is worth more!!!

It wasn't until 2007 that the CAD gained 23% its value. It was at nearly 60 cents to the USD in 2002.

that means valuation was 35% INCREASE.. THAT MEANS THE DEBT OF 2002 IS WORTH 35% LESS THAN OUR DEBT TODAY. Geuss what the debt increase under harper 23% in one year on currency value alone!!!

that is 100 billion dollar value 10billion more in debt paydown!!! in 1 year!

The worst part of this is US minimum wage is still $6/hour (and it is only worth 3$ 1994 currency value today!!!)

Edited July 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

Wrong - it has. Oddly this is combined with unemployment - even worse.

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you've never opened up an economics textbook in your life...or read the financial section of a newspaper...or checked any of your facts.

This is another in a long line of poorly written, badly sourced and totally balogna posts from Mr. William Ashley.

The liberals paid down over 100 billion of debt. The conservatives spent it last year and this year. (they spent a decade of surpluses the year before) You know what - It is higher, but the population has increased - you can say - that "it ain't so bad" but the situation is it is 100 billion worse that is 1/6th (a 17% increase on debt load and it only took 2 years to do.. the biggest hike in public debt in all canada's history!!!

I'm almost certain you were one of the ones back late in 2008 complaining that the conservatives weren't doing enough to stimulate the economy. I'm not sure if you remember but we have been going through the worst recession in 80 years. Ring a bell?

This while someone stated as being an 'economist' was at the helm - no I think maybe he doesn't have the best intersts of canadians in mind - maybe it is just imperial oil) - and 200 billion is written into future debt this year also (another 34% debt load from 2008 - canada has to pay an additional 5 or 6 billion on this each year.. and its revenue is only 250 some billion to being with cutting 30 or so billion just to pay interest charges!). You can say - but we have more people now. THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING INTO RETIREMENT 2020 (less than 10 years from now) 1 in 4 will be retired. 1 in four not working due to being too young and 1 in 10 to 20 or so unemployed.

that is 25% old 25% young 5-10% not working (who knows) not to mention the 10% that are disabled. this works out to atleast half the population of canada NOT CONTRIBUTING BUT INSTEAD TAKING from the economy (not wholely but partly as they are still spending - BUT they arn't earning as much probably)

First, take an English class so that you can ensure your posts are coherent enough to bother reading. Second, take an economics class so that you know what you're talking about. Third, take a reality course so that you're not totally full of cowshite.

selling revenue bearing properties taxes and increase debt becomes THE ONLY means of raising revenue - the point of no return .. its all over...

GUYS THE SKY IS FALLING.

Wait..no it isn't. Other ways of increasing revenue:

1. Resource development

2. Modernization and improving efficiency.

3. Expanding trade (perhaps free trade with EU which is being discussed as we speak)

4. Immigration (Expand the population)

and many others...

you have to CLUE IN, that it is actual per capita (as per contributors to potential productive contribution) that matter..

and that ratio is BOTTOMING OUT... it is crisis .. this is no joke... IT IS OVER>. all OVER!!! the fat lady is going into retirement.

:rolleyes:

WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PER CAPTIA DEBT IN THE G8!!! (except for the US but they don't count)

Could we see a citation for that?

Edited July 27, 2010 by Moonbox

[Alta4ever]

Don't forget moonbox, this is the same poster that started a thread on how the world was going to end over the weekend because North Korea made a threat, which it does every time the US and South Korea conduct joint exercises.

[Moonbox]

Yep. Nothing to see here.

[Smallc]

So according to the Conference Board, the deficit could be gone a year ahead of schedule:

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/07/29/conference-board-federal-deficit.html

That would be nice (although it is something that I agree with, and predicted).

Edited July 29, 2010 by Smallc

[Moonbox]

I'd prefer it be gone in the next 2 years. Oh well. Nobody is offering that as an alternative.

[Smallc]

I'm sure it could be done, but it would be very difficult. This year should mark the last large deficit.

[dre]

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if you've never opened up an economics textbook in your life...or read the financial section of a newspaper...or checked any of your facts.

This is another in a long line of poorly written, badly sourced and totally balogna posts from Mr. William Ashley.

I'm almost certain you were one of the ones back late in 2008 complaining that the conservatives weren't doing enough to stimulate the economy. I'm not sure if you remember but we have been going through the worst recession in 80 years. Ring a bell?

First, take an English class so that you can ensure your posts are coherent enough to bother reading. Second, take an economics class so that you know what you're talking about. Third, take a reality course so that you're not totally full of cowshite.

GUYS THE SKY IS FALLING.

Wait..no it isn't. Other ways of increasing revenue:

1. Resource development

2. Modernization and improving efficiency.

3. Expanding trade (perhaps free trade with EU which is being discussed as we speak)

4. Immigration (Expand the population)

and many others...

:rolleyes:

Could we see a citation for that?

I'm not sure if you remember but we have been going through the worst recession in 80 years. Ring a bell?

Actually thats not true by any objective measure.

The recent recession was really about the 4th worst post war recession for Canada, with the recession of the early eighties being by far the worst. The 2008-2009 recession was actually about the same in terms of depth as the recession in 1972-1975.

In fact you could even argue that the recession in the early 90's was worse.

During the recession, real Gross Domestic Product in Canada dropped 3.3%, compared with 4.9% in the six-quarter recessions from 1981-1982 and a 3.4% slump spread over four quarters in the early 1990s.

In terms of jobs, StatsCan also said the recession had not been unusually severe.

Quarterly jobs fell 1.8%, compared with 3.2% in the 1990s and 5% two decades ago. The unemployment rate gained 2.5 percentage points to 8.7% compared with a jump of 6 points in the 1980s and 4.2 points in the early 1990s, it said.

Edited July 29, 2010 by dre

[Yesterday]

So according to the Conference Board, the deficit could be gone a year ahead of schedule:

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/07/29/conference-board-federal-deficit.html

That would be nice (although it is something that I agree with, and predicted).

Hi, so this means that we will potentially run a budgetary surplus? This is a good thing but what does it mean to Canada's over all debt per capita ratio? Obviously not running at a deficit should have a positive effect on this number but does it? It should cause the tax coffers to be fuller.

Could running a budgetary surplus create a situation where Canada's overall debt can be reduced? I am not sure of the exact amount of it but I have read paper's that suggest a 170 million/day payout in interest alone for this debt, whatever it entails.

In terms of how debt is furthering GDP and things like foreign investment to such great lengths, how does reducing debt play into this picture?

[Smallc]

Canada's debt to GDP ration should peak this year, and begin to fall next year. That is one of the most important measures. Canada is and will remain in a much better position than most other countries.

[Yesterday]

In terms of government bonds, especially long term ones, is the payment required to honour those bonds at that later date considered part of the current debt load?

[dre]

In terms of government bonds, especially long term ones, is the payment required to honour those bonds at that later date considered part of the current debt load?

Yes that IS the current debt load.

[Yesterday]

Yes that IS the current debt load.

Hi, ok so what I am wondering...if our debt load is tied up with government bonds, how much can the deficit actually be reduced, can it actually be reduced? Wouldn't it mean that the Federal budget would need to collect more taxes to operate if the bonds get restricted enough to reduce that deficit? How can we reduce the deficit when we have to go into debt every year just to produce bonds? This is the part that makes me wonder. Is the problem simply a surface one where money is not being directed properly for the repayment of this debt or is more of a systemic problem in that the debt ensures our operating budget is large enough and thus so really can't be reduced to any great degree?

[Smallc]

The tax base of the government increases every year. This happens because of economic and population growth. Also, operational spending will be cut at the end of this year.

[Yesterday]

The tax base of the government increases every year. This happens because of economic and population growth. Also, operational spending will be cut at the end of this year.

This is true, taxes do go up yearly. I understand this to be a main reason for being able to run a budgetary surplus. But regardless of this surplus, regardless of higher taxes, how do we reduce the deficit when it is needed to produce bonds?

For instance, is there a point in reducing the amount of deficit that will effect the governments ability to produce bonds? I understand it to work that bonds are produced from credit extended on future tax collection and production. Under this scenario could one say a lot of the money used to run this year was hedged on future performance? So if we cannot run a deficit this way, if the deficit must be greatly reduced, where will the replacement federal budget money come from? More taxes?

Edited July 30, 2010 by Yesterday

[Smallc]

Federal spending is made up of three main things - transfers to people and provinces, operational spending, and interest on the debt. At the end of this fiscal year, the stimulus program will be ended, and so the first two components of federal spending will be reduced, getting rid of about half of the deficit. After that, given reasonable growth numbers, we should be able to 'coast' out of the deficit on our own inertia.

[Yesterday]

Federal spending is made up of three main things - transfers to people and provinces, operational spending, and interest on the debt. At the end of this fiscal year, the stimulus program will be ended, and so the first two components of federal spending will be reduced, getting rid of about half of the deficit. After that, given reasonable growth numbers, we should be able to 'coast' out of the deficit on our own inertia.

What does removing the deficit really mean? We can't produce bonds this way without carrying a deficit, perhaps not a yearly budgetary deficit but we need to carry a massive debt forward from year to year based on past decisions and the needs of future growth. Does removing the deficit mean we can stop producing government bonds? Can we stop producing government bonds? Can government bonds be created on things other than taxes and production?

Edited July 30, 2010 by Yesterday

[Smallc]

So we could remove all federal deficit without removing any ability to produce long term bonds?

We've done it before.

[Yesterday]

We've done it before.

Hi, could you give me a reference to something to read to understand this better? I promise to stop pestering you with questions....giggle.

[Bonam]

What does removing the deficit really mean? We can't produce bonds this way without carrying a deficit, perhaps not a yearly budgetary deficit but we need to carry a massive debt forward from year to year based on past decisions and the needs of future growth. Does removing the deficit mean we can stop producing government bonds? Can we stop producing government bonds? Can government bonds be created on things other than taxes and production?

Eliminating the deficit doesn't necessarily mean that you stop issuing bonds. After all, an individual can have both debts and investments, the debts require a certain amount of money to maintain, and a certain income can be derived from the investments. If the investments (savings) exceed the debts than one is not in deficit. In terms of governments, this is done through Soverign Wealth Funds (SWFs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_wealth_fund

Edited July 30, 2010 by Bonam

[Smallc]

Hi, could you give me a reference to something to read to understand this better? I promise to stop pestering you with questions....giggle.

I simply mean we continued to issue bonds of one type or another while having no deficit not that long ago.