Predict how Canada will look like in 4 years

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

 it's not like the Liberals, NDP and BQ didn't try to overthrow the minority tory government

It's not like Harper didn't control the purse strings. It's not like Harper didn't decide to waste the money on his brain-dead shovel ready projects.

... and especially I love it how you claim superior knowledge but conveniently forget that Harper ran massive deficits for years, way beyond the 2 year stimulus program, and long after he got his coveted majority.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

It's not like Harper didn't control the purse strings. It's not like Harper didn't decide to waste the money on his brain-dead shovel ready projects.

... and especially I love it how you claim superior knowledge but conveniently forget that Harper ran massive deficits for years, way beyond the 2 year stimulus program, and long after he got his coveted majority.

And what did you want him to do, instantly cut back on all kinds of programs to balance the budget? That would have damaged the economy which was still fragile. Can you name me a democratic government anywhere on earth which has, in recent history, gone from like a $30 billion budget deficit to a balanced budget in one year? It doesn't happen.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

And what did you want him to do, instantly cut back on all kinds of programs to balance the budget? That would have damaged the economy which was still fragile. Can you name me a democratic government anywhere on earth which has, in recent history, gone from like a $30 billion budget deficit to a balanced budget in one year? 

Chretien did it in two years.  In constant (today's) dollar terms, he reduced the deficit by more than $30B in 1 year (1994 - 1995).  Harper could have eliminated the deficit.  A return of the GST to 7% and a cut back of program spending like the Chretien Liberal did would have more than taken care of it.  You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think he did the right thing, minus the GST cut and the austerity during post 2012 slow growth.  Canada would not be any worse off economically if it had been running a $10B deficit last year.  

[?Impact]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

And what did you want him to do, instantly cut back on all kinds of programs to balance the budget? 

His deficit was supposedly about the stimulus program, something that he adamantly stated had a 24 month timeframe and then would be cut back to nothing. So yes, it should have instantly been cut back. The point is that Conservatives are fiscally incompetent. 

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Smallc said:

Chretien did it in two years.  In constant (today's) dollar terms, he reduced the deficit by more than $30B in 1 year (1994 - 1995).  Harper could have eliminated the deficit.  A return of the GST to 7% and a cut back of program spending like the Chretien Liberal did would have more than taken care of it.  You can't have it both ways.

Where are you getting your imaginary figures from?

1993-94 -- $42 billion (5.9 per cent of GDP)
1994-95 -- $37.5 billion (5.0 per cent of GDP)
1995-96 -- $32.7 billion (4.2 per cent of GDP)
1996-97 -- $24.3 billion (3 per cent of GDP)
1997-98 -- $17 billion (2 per cent of GDP)

https://fin.gc.ca/budget96/binb/binb1-eng.asp#int

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

His deficit was supposedly about the stimulus program, something that he adamantly stated had a 24 month timeframe and then would be cut back to nothing. So yes, it should have instantly been cut back. The point is that Conservatives are fiscally incompetent. 

His deficit was not strictly about the stimulus program as government revenues dropped and expenditures rose during the deficit, but at least he moved in the right direction almost immediately. To instantly slash $50 billion from spending given how weak the economy was would have been moronic. His deficits were:

2008-09    $5.8 b

2009-10     $55.6b

2010-11     $33.4b

2011-12     $26.3b

2012-13     $18.4b

2013-14     $5.2b

http://globalnews.ca/news/2202138/did-harper-really-run-eight-straight-deficits-like-the-ndp-liberals-claim/

[Smallc]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

Where are you getting your imaginary figures from?

1993-94 -- $42 billion (5.9 per cent of GDP)
1994-95 -- $37.5 billion (5.0 per cent of GDP)
1995-96 -- $32.7 billion (4.2 per cent of GDP)
1996-97 -- $24.3 billion (3 per cent of GDP)
1997-98 -- $17 billion (2 per cent of GDP)

https://fin.gc.ca/budget96/binb/binb1-eng.asp#int

 

Those were the deficit projections before austerity was implemented.  This is what actually happened:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Those were the deficit projections before austerity was implemented.  This is what actually happened:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

If you want to give Chretien credit for lowering the deficit $30 billion per year in two years you have to give Harper the same credit for doing the same thing, which I know you don't want to do.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

Well one of them has to be wrong.  I happen to know the CBC chart isn't. 

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Well one of them has to be wrong.  I happen to know the CBC chart isn't. 

So what exactly is your point again? Chretien didn't eliminate the deficit in two years. He reduced it by about $30b (according to your cite) at a time of enormous economic expansion for Canada and a flood of money coming in through the GST. Harper similarly reduced the deficit by about $30 billion in two years, though without the huge upsurge in revenues.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

23 minutes ago, Argus said:

So what exactly is your point again? Chretien didn't eliminate the deficit in two years.

Yeah, he did actually.  

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

If you want to give Chretien credit for lowering the deficit $30 billion per year in two years you have to give Harper the same credit for doing the same thing, which I know you don't want to do.

Do you give Harper the credit for increasing the deficit by $50 billion in a single year?

[Argus]

36 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Do you give Harper the credit for increasing the deficit by $50 billion in a single year?

Sure, but I give equal credit to the NDP, Liberals and BQ.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Smallc said:

Yeah, he did actually.  

Your own cite refutes you.

[Smallc]

37 minutes ago, Argus said:

Your own cite refutes you.

It shows the deficit going from $30B to a surplus between 1994 -1995 and 1996 - 1997.

[Smallc]

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sure, but I give equal credit to the NDP, Liberals and BQ.

That's blatantly dishonest on your part.  The government is responsible for introducing money bills.

[Army Guy]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That's blatantly dishonest on your part.  The government is responsible for introducing money bills.

Yes, Smallc is correct they government of the day is responsible for all decisions.....But correct me if I'm wrong, was their not tremendous pressure from both NDP, Liberal, and others to spend to stim our economy ?

[Army Guy]

20 hours ago, Smallc said:

Chretien did it in two years.  In constant (today's) dollar terms, he reduced the deficit by more than $30B in 1 year (1994 - 1995).  Harper could have eliminated the deficit.  A return of the GST to 7% and a cut back of program spending like the Chretien Liberal did would have more than taken care of it.  You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think he did the right thing, minus the GST cut and the austerity during post 2012 slow growth.  Canada would not be any worse off economically if it had been running a $10B deficit last year.  

Yes Chretien did do as you say, but at what cost to the many depts. he gutted....DND is still feeling the effects of the decade of darkness, along with most of the other depts. in the security apparatus.

[Smallc]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Yes, Smallc is correct they government of the day is responsible for all decisions.....But correct me if I'm wrong, was their not tremendous pressure from both NDP, Liberal, and others to spend to stim our economy ?

And?  If the government really felt deficits were a no no, they could have went down to defeat, and put it to the people.  They chose the easy way out.

[Smallc]

Just now, Army Guy said:

Yes Chretien did do as you say, but at what cost to the many depts. he gutted....DND is still feeling the effects of the decade of darkness, along with most of the other depts. in the security apparatus.

So are deficits important, or no?  I'm having trouble keeping track of it.

 

 

[Army Guy]

18 minutes ago, Smallc said:

So are deficits important, or no?  I'm having trouble keeping track of it.

 

 

You tell me, I never posted we could spend 100 bil a year, and not really feel anything.

But I do agree there needs to be a balance, but sooner or later someone needs to pay off these debts....me, my kids, my grand children, they're kids etc, etc.

Well according to Chretien actions, running a deficit is a no fly zone,  to be avoided at all costs even if it means gutting entire depts....a 180 degree turn from what you have advised why did Chretien not spend his way out of trouble.....

Edited December 31, 2016 by Army Guy

[Smallc]

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Well according to Chretien actions, running a deficit is a no fly zone,  to be avoided at all costs even if it means gutting entire depts....a 180 degree turn from what you have advised why did Chretien not spend his way out of trouble.....

That was a completely different time and a completely different set of circumstances.

[Army Guy]

15 minutes ago, Smallc said:

That was a completely different time and a completely different set of circumstances.

What has changed from then to now, has Canada suddenly found a money tree, or a secret Santa. or perhaps it has determined we will always be in debt and to just stop trying to control debt. Please explain.

[Smallc]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

What has changed from then to now, has Canada suddenly found a money tree, or a secret Santa. or perhaps it has determined we will always be in debt and to just stop trying to control debt. Please explain.

Canada halved it's debt to GDP ratio and doubled the size of its economy.  That's what happened.  A $30B deficit for a few years is nothing.

[Wilber]

On 2016-12-02 at 7:30 PM, -TSS- said:

Indeed and even if people weren't too satisfied with the situation the issue is simply never going to be urgent enough to be addressed at once.

On top of that all this "if it ain't broken don't fix it"-rhetoric. Given the demographic changes your country is undergoing there are bound to be a lot of people who will think it is broken and needs to be fixed.

Btw. When you become a Canadian citizen are you obliged to make some oath of allegiance to the crown or only Canada?

 

 

I can understand that some people don't like the idea of a monarchy but what exactly is broken? Hard to get a specific answer on that score.