Liberal deficit set at 18.4 billion

Argus · February 23, 2016

You mean kinda like how the conservatives keep saying they left a, he hem, "surplus" behind?

That is what the finance department said. I note, however, that in the tradition of Dalton McGuinty, the federal Liberals have started out by exaggerating what that deficit is in order to blame it all on the Tories.

Argus · February 23, 2016

Conservative hypocrites have some nerve to criticize this budget deficit. And Ambrose was part of the Harper government in 2009 when Canada was in economic downturn (not because of low commodity prices) and they (Ambrose included) took a 14 billion dollar surplus they inherited from liberals and turned it into a 55 billion dollar deficit in 2009 by infrastructure spending and it took them some 6-7 years to get close to balanced budget.

The Conservatives had a minority government, and the hypocrits are Liberals and NDPers who were screaming in fury as they demanded a huge incentive spending program, threatening to take over the government if they didn't get it - and now shrug their shoulders and say "who me" when its discussed, as if they bore zero responsibility.

The economic situation we are in now is in no way comparable to the beginning of the worst recession in recent memory.

Argus · February 23, 2016

Debt is part of a healthy system to pay the services we want.

No, it is not. It is part of a corrupt system whereby governments only need to please people during a near-term period, and so build up debt for the future in order to do so.

Hey, by the time the debt mountain starts collapsing they'll be safely in retirement with their untouchable platinum pensions.

Smallc · February 23, 2016

In 2009 the world had a very sharp recession, including our major trading partners. The US is not in recession and its economy is improving. We are not in recession either. Comparing our situation to 2009 is merely an opportunity to excuse Liberal deficit financing in order to buy the election.

You'll have to tell that to the IMF and OECD - both of whom see unexpected trouble around the world and in the US. There's a reason that they, along with the bank of Canada, have called for fiscal policy interventions. The US will not come anywhere near returning to full growth, and less than a month ago, there was talk of a possible US recession (it's still a possibility).

Smallc · February 23, 2016

The Conservatives had a minority government

When they ran their post 2011 deficits?

Smallc · February 23, 2016

That is what the finance department said.

The first 6 months are not predictive of the year as a whole.

On Guard for Thee · February 23, 2016

That is what the finance department said. I note, however, that in the tradition of Dalton McGuinty, the federal Liberals have started out by exaggerating what that deficit is in order to blame it all on the Tories.

Blame should be alloted where due, such as fiddling the books to create an illusion of a surplus.

Argus · February 23, 2016

Ahhh, we're talking about the baseline deficit, before most Liberal spending measures. It appears Harper left a real mess (I can be just as ridiculous, if we're doing that).

No, we're talking about a projected deficit which includes Liberal calculations which reduce expected income, and which increase the size of the contingency fund to $6B (one third of the deficit)

And just how did we go from a small deficit to an enormous one in such a short period of time? What games did the Ontario liberal party boys and girls play with the books?

There’s reason to doubt how much of that $18 billion is really due to factors beyond the Liberals’ control, or even whether it is really $18 billion. Even in advance of the stimulus package, spending is now on track to exceed what was projected in the budget by $4 billion. And while the sudden $12-billion drop in revenues since last November may be real, it’s also hard to explain.

While growth is indeed off — the continuing effects of the turmoil in world energy markets — the sharpest shortfall from previous projections, according to the statement, is in the fourth quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016: that is, in the 2015-16 fiscal year. Yet revenues for that year have been revised up by $2.6 billion. Meanwhile, revenues in 2016-17, when growth is projected to be more or less on track with previous forecasts, are supposed to drop like a stone.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-liberals-launch-the-not-our-fault-defence-as-deficit-forcecast-balloons-to-18-4-billion

Edited February 23, 2016 by Argus

Smallc · February 23, 2016

No, we're talking about a projected deficit which includes Liberal calculations which reduce expected income, and which increase the size of the contingency fund to $6B (one third of the deficit)

I've already said that about $2B of that calculation belongs to the Liberals, ad that $6B is a contingency (given the current uncertainty, a bigger margin for error is better than a smaller one. That means that Harper would have still have a deficit in the range of $10B to contend with.

Argus · February 23, 2016

at 31 per cent, Canada’s federal debt is the lowest among G7 countries... for example, a $27 billion deficit would be only 1.5 per cent of GDP.

Canada can't be accurately compared to most other G7 countries because our sub-national governments are responsible for such a huge proportion of overall government spending. And they are almost all running huge deficits too.

Smallc · February 23, 2016

Canada can't be accurately compared to most other G7 countries because our sub-national governments are responsible for such a huge proportion of overall government spending. And they are almost all running huge deficits too.

Some of them have large deficits (Newfoundland, for example). Some of them have shrinking deficits (Ontario). Some of them have small deficits. BC and quebec have no deficit.

Sub national governments in Canada have wide power to raise their own revenue to pay for their own expenses anyway.

But thank you for recognizing the need of the federal government to come to the table as a funding partner.

Argus · February 23, 2016

and now... now... Kevin Page is a go-to source for Conservative supporters?

Given no one but a complete blithering idiot would suggest Page was any sort of Tory supporter I would say his words, which question Liberal accounting, should certainly be carefully looked at.

Smallc · February 23, 2016

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/article28846872.ece/binary/debtgdp.jpg

I think this puts it in perspective a bit

CITIZEN_2015 · February 23, 2016

The Conservatives had a minority government, and the hypocrits are Liberals and NDPers who were screaming in fury as they demanded a huge incentive spending program, threatening to take over the government if they didn't get it - and now shrug their shoulders and say "who me" when its discussed, as if they bore zero responsibility.

The economic situation we are in now is in no way comparable to the beginning of the worst recession in recent memory.

The only good policy that the Cons under Harper had in all 10 years of miserable rule was to save Canada from a depression that plagued the world in 2008 and 2009 and with your post you are pasing on the credit even for that single good deed to Liberal and NDP screaming for spending? You are saying the conservative government in 2009 only acted (or submitted) to Liberal and NDP asking for spending that saved Canada from a depression.

Yes and the deficit we will have now is not going to be 55 billion dollars either.

Argus · February 23, 2016

The only good policy that the Cons under Harper had in all 10 years of miserable rule was to save Canada from a depression that plagued the world in 2008 and 2009 and with your post you are pasing on the credit even for that single good deed to Liberal and NDP screaming for spending? You are saying the conservative government in 2009 only acted (or submitted) to Liberal and NDP asking for spending that saved Canada from a depression.

Yep. And here's more news for you. All that 'incentive spending' accomplished nothing other than to build the debt higher.

What saved us from the recession was the oil industry.

Yes and the deficit we will have now is not going to be 55 billion dollars either.

Don't count on it.

Smallc · February 24, 2016

Don't count on it.

If it was good enough for Harper...

CITIZEN_2015 · February 24, 2016

Yep. And here's more news for you. All that 'incentive spending' accomplished nothing other than to build the debt higher.

What saved us from the recession was the oil industry.

The oil industry alone saved Canada from a depression!!!!!!! Quite an statement up there. Btw, oil was only betweem $50 to $60. Not $100+ because worldwide credit crunch dampened demand.

Topaz · February 24, 2016

The Liberals may not be in real financial trouble, IF the following happens. The sale of military equipment to S.A. will bring in 10-13 billion, IF the job creation with the help of infrastructure projects moves along, within 2 years the economy improves globally, but the down side is the war and having to spend for military equipment, which every country knows is very, very expensive. We can't be involve in a war and get the country in better financial terms, If that were true, the US wouldn't be heading to a 20Trillion debt.

Smallc · February 24, 2016

The Liberals may not be in real financial trouble, IF the following happens. The sale of military equipment to S.A. will bring in 10-13 billion,

That's not government money.

Anyway, Scotiabank's chief economist says we need $20B of stimulus spending in FY2016-17 to support the slowing economy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle28854484/

Argus · February 24, 2016

That's not government money.

Anyway, Scotiabank's chief economist says we need $20B of stimulus spending in FY2016-17 to support the slowing economy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle28854484/

That was a silly column, since you couldn't possibly fund $20 billion in legitimate stimulus spending in that amount of time. If you tried, 90% would be spent on canoe museums and useless make-work schemes like paying telemarketing companies to open up shop and employ people for a few years (until the money runs out). This was the problem with the 'stimulus' spending under the Conservatives. By the the time they'd worked through the planning and commitments and let out the money, and the various projects were actually getting started, the recession had already pretty much ended.

The Liberals hope to 'solve' this issue by not really having any serious incentive funding. Almost all their funding will go to ongoing program spending on various public and social welfare schemes. Of course, the problem with that is that unlike building a bridge or a road, the demand for money is ongoing, but that just means bigger deficits for an indefinite period, and clearly that's not something that will bother any Liberals.

On Guard for Thee · February 24, 2016

That was a silly column, since you couldn't possibly fund $20 billion in legitimate stimulus spending in that amount of time. If you tried, 90% would be spent on canoe museums and useless make-work schemes like paying telemarketing companies to open up shop and employ people for a few years (until the money runs out). This was the problem with the 'stimulus' spending under the Conservatives. By the the time they'd worked through the planning and commitments and let out the money, and the various projects were actually getting started, the recession had already pretty much ended.

The Liberals hope to 'solve' this issue by not really having any serious incentive funding. Almost all their funding will go to ongoing program spending on various public and social welfare schemes. Of course, the problem with that is that unlike building a bridge or a road, the demand for money is ongoing, but that just means bigger deficits for an indefinite period, and clearly that's not something that will bother any Liberals.

$60 billion over 10 years plus a few billion Harper left laying around that were promised but never spent seems like serious incentive spending to me.

Army Guy · February 24, 2016

60 bil is a lot of funding , but what are we getting for it....Have we solved any major issues with it....health care, education, does it touch any of the programs harper left swinging in the air....Ship building program that was not funded properly....or the F-18 replacement program.....where is all that funding coming from, it is not included in your 60 bil.....what I want to know what is the final number, and how do we pay for it.....and when....

Smallc · February 24, 2016

The infrastructure deficit is just as critical as any monetary deficit. It gets more expensive to carry every year, and is a drag on the economy. Spend money on infrastructure now.

Argus · February 24, 2016

The infrastructure deficit is just as critical as any monetary deficit. It gets more expensive to carry every year, and is a drag on the economy. Spend money on infrastructure now.

I think about 5% of the Liberal deficit spending will be on actual infrastructure.

Smallc · February 24, 2016

I think about 5% of the Liberal deficit spending will be on actual infrastructure.

That comes from a flawed analysis that counted the cost of the new child benefit program, but not the money recouped from ending all of the old programs. The cost of the child benefit program in net terms is about the same as the infrastructure program, meaning 1/3 of new Liberal spending is for each.