5 Billion added to deficit

[PIK]

While it's correct to question the government, I doubt many people on this board are qualified to read a budget and see where its flaws are. Sometimes we need to trust our governments to do the right thing and hope they do. If they do not we can all vote them out next election which thankfully isn't for a long time. I was tired of the constant elections.

I have never trusted a goverment in my life till harper came along. And yes he will make mistakes.

[jacee]

Less revenues? Yes I agree, more people unemployed , less money coming in through income tax and the corp.taxes, bring in less revenue. It seems the only thing growing is the unemployed and so how is EI going to survive, more increase in premiums for those that work? There is one more item growing and that is the billions of dolllars that business is keeping and lately the Feds have been commenting on business to start and help the economy.

EI is self-supporting and has surpluses to get through the bad times.

It's welfare that's underfunded.

And yes, business/industry are hoarding a lot of capital, some of which is corporate subsidies - taxpayer money - that they have no business having at all because they're not creating jobs with it, just using it as 'profit'.

[Smallc]

EI is self-supporting and has surpluses to get through the bad times.

That surplus is only theoretical. Until Harper had Flaherty put EI into its own account, premiums just went into general revenues, and were spent. The current EI account set up by the Conservatives with a $2B initial contribution is in a big deficit because the government hasn't let the new EI board do their job. EI rates have been kept artificially low in order to lower costs to employers. That means that EI has still been coming out of general revenue, because there isn't any actual money in the EI account.

[Argus]

It was $42B when Chretien took over. It was gone in less than 3 years after they promised it would be gone. They were the largest cuts in Canadian history....yet no Conservatives want to give him credit for it.

Why should we? The bulk of the reasons were out of his control. Those were the sudden resurgence of the American economy, and thus ours, and the billions upon billions which poured in from the GST he had sworn to abolish.

[Argus]

They were draconian cuts, and they were done on the back of the provinces. Just as the Conservatives won't give him credit for that,

Why should we give him credit for cutting transfers to the provinces? It was the provinces which then had to make he tough choices about what to fund and not fund and deal with the fallout.

[Smallc]

Why should we? The bulk of the reasons were out of his control.

Well, except for the massive cuts to government.

[login]

[gunrutz]

The opposition had been claiming their numbers were bunk already. That their tax cuts and spending made their forecast impossible. And behold. It's not possible.

The numbers the liberals gave in the 90's were usually bs too, they just happen to be to the good after much deeper cuts than what the current government made, it's the same game all of the time, it's so small and petty the some need to make an issue of it, projections are always political.

[login]

The numbers the liberals gave in the 90's were usually bs too, they just happen to be to the good after much deeper cuts than what the current government made, it's the same game all of the time, it's so small and petty the some need to make an issue of it, projections are always political.

The conservatives havn't made cuts yet. They superinflated the budget 2006-2008 added 10% to the public servicesize. They are still normalizing. Tax revenue has increased and they are still deficit spending by 28 billion this year. Their goal by the end of the term is to stop overspending, people are skeptical.

Giant scissors is the only thing that comes to mind.

Edited November 17, 2012 by login