Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 schools, day cares, hospitals, housing and most jails are not federal responsibilites. Nor is most infrastructure, yet the federal government under the Conservatives was a funding partner in the construction of many of those things. I don't remember your complaints. And why do you hate our children? Why would we burden them with that? An ever shrinking debt to GDP ratio means its less and less of a burden. Quote
ironstone Posted February 18, 2016 Report Posted February 18, 2016 Trudeau has no control over the eroding position of Canada's federal finances. The rest of your post is a bunch of unsupported ad hominems directed at Trudeau. So did Trudeau meet his deadline for the 25000 refugees? Is he going to meet his 10 billion deficit target? Seems the evidence is on my side so far. And what, precisely,does Trudeau have control over as Prime Minister. Harper got blamed for everything under the sun,real and imagined.Why should the great Justin Trudeau be insulated from any and all criticism? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
Smallc Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Posted February 18, 2016 So did Trudeau meet his deadline for the 25000 refugees? He met the number. The fact that he chose to push back the date has more to do with irrational fear than anything. Is he going to meet his 10 billion deficit target? Considering that the baseline for next year went from a surplus of more than $2B to a deficit of more than $3B according to the PBO, no, I don't. Seems the evidence is on my side so far. According to trudeametre, he's so far kept 13 promises and broken 3. And what, precisely,does Trudeau have control over as Prime Minister. The direction of policy for the federal government. Not much else. Harper got blamed for everything under the sun,real and imagined.Why should the great Justin Trudeau be insulated from any and all criticism? Since I was not the person blaming Harper for most things, I have no idea. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Each percent of GST is worth about $7billion per year... How much further ahead would Canada be if Harper wasn't so irresponsible in the fiscal management of the country? Given this is a consumer led economy, sabotaging consumer spending would seem to be a poor idea. Edited February 19, 2016 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 Given this is a consumer led economy, sabotaging consumer spending would seem to be a poor idea. That extra 0.03 on a drink is a real killer. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 Um, two of the three "horrible" countries you mention that do a lot of business in the world, are permanent members of the UN. And Iran is quickly catching up with the lifting of trade restrictions. I rest my case. You rest what case? You've just made the case that horrible countries get tons of business around the world without anyone caring that they're horrible. Good for you! Except that was my point, not yours. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 That extra 0.03 on a drink is a real killer. People care a little more about an extra $1000 on a car, or an extra $10,000-$15,000 on a house. They also care about an extra $20 on their groceries every single week, and an extra $20 on their gas every single week. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 People care a little more about an extra $1000 on a car, or an extra $10,000-$15,000 on a house. They also care about an extra $20 on their groceries every single week, and an extra $20 on their gas every single week. Groceries and used houses don't have GST. People don't even think about the after tax price of a vehicle, as it's all rolled into the payments. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 schools, day cares, hospitals, housing and most jails are not federal responsibilites. Yeah, that's the problem with the left. They don't seem to understand the delineation of responsibilities. Given Trudeau can't solve or even address all federal responsibilities he should stop interfering in the problems that belong to provinces and municipalities. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 Yeah, that's the problem with the left. They don't seem to understand the delineation of responsibilities. Aren't you the guy that thinks that the feds should be in charge of health delivery, though a Crown Corporation? Given Trudeau can't solve or even address all federal responsibilities he should stop interfering in the problems that belong to provinces and municipalities. The federal government can be a funding partner in areas of provincial responsibility. Always has, and always will be. Quote
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said in a report Thursday that more public investment is needed in advanced economies as it becomes clear that monetary policy alone has failed to stoke growth. -------- Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets, said that the federal government could work with a $30- to $40-billion budget deficit and not risk its goal of reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio by the end of the Liberal mandate. Even a $40 billion deficit, which would be the largest since the Harper government’s more than $50 billion deficit during the Great Recession years, would sit at roughly two per cent of Canada’s GDP. http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-leading-the-charge-as-calls-for-more-fiscal-stimulus-grow Apparently, conservatives have a problem with reality. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 Aren't you the guy that thinks that the feds should be in charge of health delivery, though a Crown Corporation? I'm the one who thinks that if you have a divided responsibility different levels of government can just point fingers at each other for problems they won't address. The federal government can be a funding partner in areas of provincial responsibility. Always has, and always will be. The federal government at the moment can't even fund the things under its direct jurisdiction. Maybe when it manages that and has some money left over it can tap dance over to the provinces and offer them up more money. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets, said that the federal government could work with a $30- to $40-billion budget deficit and not risk its goal of reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio by the end of the Liberal mandate. Even a $40 billion deficit, which would be the largest since the Harper government’s more than $50 billion deficit during the Great Recession years, would sit at roughly two per cent of Canada’s GDP. So, adding in a few hundred billion dollars more to the debt is no big deal, right? It's not like it ever has to be paid back, or that there's any interest that has to be paid on it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 The federal government at the moment can't even fund the things under its direct jurisdiction. Maybe when it manages that and has some money left over it can tap dance over to the provinces and offer them up more money. Things like infrastructure, education, and health are arguably the most important things to the future of Canada. The federal government as a funding partner in those things doesn't hurt (as you said, why divide the responsibility?) Of course, we should raise taxes. I'm glad you agree. Quote
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 So, adding in a few hundred billion dollars more to the debt is no big deal, right? It's not like it ever has to be paid back, or that there's any interest that has to be paid on it. It's really not a big deal, no. It wasn't a big deal for the Conservatives and isn't a big deal now. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 It's really not a big deal, no. It wasn't a big deal for the Conservatives and isn't a big deal now. It was a big deal. It is a big deal. Your attitude is how nations fall so deep into debt they need the IMF to bail them out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 It was a big deal. It is a big deal. Your attitude is how nations fall so deep into debt they need the IMF to bail them out. Nations with falling debt to GDP ratios don't need the IMF to bail them out. That's nothing but hyperbole. Quote
dre Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 Nor is most infrastructure, yet the federal government under the Conservatives was a funding partner in the construction of many of those things. I don't remember your complaints. An ever shrinking debt to GDP ratio means its less and less of a burden. Not really. Whats important is the debt to FEDERAL BUDGET ratio. THAT is the pool that the government has to draw from for debt maintenance. GDP growth does not necessarily mean a growth in government revenue. How much of that money they can take is a political issue and they are constantly being lobbied to cut taxes. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 Not really. Really Whats important is the debt to FEDERAL BUDGET ratio. THAT is the pool that the government has to draw from for debt maintenance. That 'pool' comes from the bigger pool of GDP. GDP growth does not necessarily mean a growth in government revenue. How much of that money they can take is a political issue and they are constantly being lobbied to cut taxes. How much politicians choose to collect at any one time is irrelevant. Government debt isn't something that has to be paid back in the same way as your own debt. With a growing economy and revenue that could even plausibly grow, debt can be shrunk to the point of irrelevance. Quote
Argus Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 Nations with falling debt to GDP ratios don't need the IMF to bail them out. That's nothing but hyperbole. Sure. You keep telling yourself that as we spend a progressively higher and higher percentage of the budget on servicing our growing debt. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bonam Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 How much politicians choose to collect at any one time is irrelevant. Government debt isn't something that has to be paid back in the same way as your own debt. With a growing economy and revenue that could even plausibly grow, debt can be shrunk to the point of irrelevance. And your income could grow too and old debts could shrink to the point of irrelevance. Or, they might not. Continuous uninterrupted economic growth and an environment of continually zero interest rates is not assured. Quote
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 And your income could grow too and old debts could shrink to the point of irrelevance. That's far less likely to happen. Or, they might not. Continuous uninterrupted economic growth and an environment of continually zero interest rates is not assured. Not assured, but quite likely for the foreseeable future. Allowing investment deficits to pile up isn't any better. Quote
Smallc Posted February 19, 2016 Author Report Posted February 19, 2016 Sure. You keep telling yourself that as we spend a progressively higher and higher percentage of the budget on servicing our growing debt. We actually spend a lower percentage than we did just a few years ago with a larger debt. Governments don't really care about the prime rate. Rates are based on our worthiness. Canada is seen as very worthy of lending. Quote
Bonam Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 That's far less likely to happen. Cite? Most people have their income grow throughout their life. Over the course of a 40 year career, most people will see their income at least double. This is comparable to the ~2% rates of real economic growth that are typical in advanced countries. Not assured, but quite likely for the foreseeable future. Allowing investment deficits to pile up isn't any better. The future is foreseeable until it's not. Conditions change rapidly. Few foresaw the financial crisis in 2008. Few will foresee the next contraction, as well. Investing in critical infrastructure is always a good idea. Maintaining deficits for many years because social programs cost more than taxes provide is not. Quote
dre Posted February 19, 2016 Report Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) Really That 'pool' comes from the bigger pool of GDP. How much politicians choose to collect at any one time is irrelevant. Government debt isn't something that has to be paid back in the same way as your own debt. With a growing economy and revenue that could even plausibly grow, debt can be shrunk to the point of irrelevance. That 'pool' DOES come from the bigger pool of GDP that's true but as I said the government cant arbitrarily decide how much they take if they want to stay in office. And the portion of that GDP that the government has to work with is shrinking. How much politicians choose to collect at any one time is irrelevant. Government debt isn't something that has to be paid back in the same way as your own debt. Sure it is. They need to make interest payments and they have to buy back treasury instruments when they mature. And they have to do that out of the federal budget or they have to sell more treasury instruments to get money to buy back the old ones. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a deficit hawk, and whether debt is good or bad depends on what you spend it on. I'm just pointing out that debt to GDP is not a very good measure of how well a country is managing its debt. Edited February 19, 2016 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.