Good News: Deficit to be $30 Billion says Bloomberg

[69cat]

The media needs to get that memo and stop using the term 'stimulus'. Because dropping that term is correct, and by doing so it simply becomes an issue of the government prioritizing its spending. Since stimulus is not required then 'infrastructure deficit' spending is balanced by cutting spending in other areas. No need to run deficits for a problem that does not exist.

Now if the government is simply going to borrow and spend money because it does not want to cut anywhere then say it as such and quit using the term 'stimulus'.

[Smallc]

The media needs to get that memo and stop using the term 'stimulus'. Because dropping that term is correct, and by doing so it simply becomes an issue of the government prioritizing its spending. Since stimulus is not required then 'infrastructure deficit' spending is balanced by cutting spending in other areas. No need to run deficits for a problem that does not exist.

Because we've failed to properly maintain and upgrade our infrastructure (one of the biggest costs to economic opportunity) we don't need to spend money in other areas? Do you understand how little sense that makes?

Did you complain about the 2010, 11, 12, 13, and 14 Harper deficits for the same reason?

Edited March 20, 2016 by Smallc

[69cat]

What part of spending in relation to revenues requires explaination? You take in $1000 and have $1500 of tasks you want to invest in so you decide which of those get $1000 and drop the others. And better yet, when debt is 66% of gdp you go so far as to spend $900 and put $100 toward debt. Does one explain further that as you borrow to spend money now because you dont want to cut then you have no rational reason to ever stop using that ideology. This is correct yes? Borrow and spend when times are good, borrow and spend when times are mediocre, borrow and spend when times are bad - this is an accurate summary.

So you bring up 2010 to 2014, it is your position that you DO NOT borrow and spend when times are bad. And so when the Libs and NDP threatened overthrow of the government in the really bad years you omitted because they demanded far more spending then they must have been way out of line then but now the Liberals are dead on target to borrow and spend because stimulus is not needed.

And so we remind our selves of the Great Financial Crisis, if only it was a well enough known event to warrant remembering in history like the Great Depression, but actually it does have a name and Canada came through it well enough for Trudeau to say that because the CPC managed the country well the Libs are in a position to borrow and spend.

So call it what it is, borrowing and spending because you are incapable of making decisions on where your income should be spent.

So tell me smallc, what economic conditions do you see being ripe for paying down debt and with no need to decide how funds are split? Since my position makes little sense lets hear yours.

[Smallc]

So tell me smallc, what economic conditions do you see being ripe for paying down debt and with no need to decide how funds are split? Since my position makes little sense lets hear yours.

Raise taxes. That's my solution to our current problem. Federal taxes are at their lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1950.

[Argus]

The media needs to get that memo and stop using the term 'stimulus'.

But Trudeau traveled the country telling us how his stimulus funding was going to put everyone back to work again.

[Argus]

Raise taxes. That's my solution to our current problem. Federal taxes are at their lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1950.

That's such a typical left wing response. There's not enough money to do everything I want to do? Just raise taxes! And keep raising them until I can do everything I want! Raise taxes on corporations, too! Raise taxes sky high! That never has any ill effects on the economy! Too many unemployed? Just hire more public servants! Problem solved!

Edited March 20, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

That's such a typical left wing response. There's not enough money to do everything I want to do?

There's probably enough money to do everything I want to do - I'm more sympathetic to your idea of government than you realize. It's just, I only get one vote. That means, to do the things I want to do, as well as the things that Canadians have decided are priorities, we need more money.

[Argus]

There's probably enough money to do everything I want to do - I'm more sympathetic to your idea of government than you realize. It's just, I only get one vote. That means, to do the things I want to do, as well as the things that Canadians have decided are priorities, we need more money.

The problem with that is the Canadians who want to do all sorts of things and don't much care if taxes are increased are mostly those who pay little or no taxes anyway. They're also the ones who want to tax the hell out of business without any thought that this might cause some of them to move or shut down.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Argus

[msj]

All this gnashing of teeth over something so trivial: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeAqM1QUkAApExi?format=pjpg&name=large

Note the yellow line is if we ran $100 billion deficits.

The red dotted line is the more probably trajectory.

Neither case is cause for alarm.

This is much ado about nothing just like Harper's deficits were.

If it wasn't for those who panic when a little bit of red ink is spilled then I suppose we could talk about things that materially matter to Canadians.

[Argus]

All this gnashing of teeth over something so trivial: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeAqM1QUkAApExi?format=pjpg&name=large

Note the yellow line is if we ran $100 billion deficits.

The red dotted line is the more probably trajectory.

Neither case is cause for alarm.

This is much ado about nothing just like Harper's deficits were.

If it wasn't for those who panic when a little bit of red ink is spilled then I suppose we could talk about things that materially matter to Canadians.

You mean because it's just little colored lines on a chart? Debt means somewhat more than that, you know. It means paying billions per year to service that debt, for one thing. Just to pay the interest - never mind paying anything back. Canadian federal and provincial governments currently pay more to service our debt than we pay for education. The federal government spends about $24 billion on interest charges on our existing debt, as opposed to about $19 billion on defense. Adding another hundred billion or two to the debt just increases those service costs further, and extends the period of time before we eventually start paying down that debt.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/government-debt-in-canada-set-to-top-1-3-trillion-in-2016-fraser-institute

Edited March 20, 2016 by Argus

[msj]

Understanding those lines and other concepts like comparing debt and deficits to assets, income, size of the economy etc is important.

Without that context we just get a bunch of conservatives complaining about debt service costs while forgetting all of the assets that are taken for granted that allowed them to use the roads to get to the coffee shops or to use the intertubes to complain without context in the first place.

[Argus]

Understanding those lines and other concepts like comparing debt and deficits to assets, income, size of the economy etc is important.

Without that context we just get a bunch of conservatives complaining about debt service costs while forgetting all of the assets that are taken for granted that allowed them to use the roads to get to the coffee shops or to use the intertubes to complain without context in the first place.

Riiiiight, except the vast majority of what we spend is not on 'assets' it's on public welfare and overpaid public servant at all levels of government.

And what progressives like to do is pretend that service costs are unimportant, that they can rise indefinitely. But every billion we spend on servicing the debt is a billion we can't spend on actual programs, unless of course, we borrow yet another billion to do so, and increase our service costs still further.

[Cl Le]

Trudeau and the Liberals promised 3 consecutive deficits of 10 billion a year , they have delivered a first year deficit of between 30 - 40 billion and unemployment continues to rise . 2019 can't come fast enough for Canadian tax payers !

[dialamah]

Hi Clueless Lefties,

Welcome to the discussion forum. Can you please explain to me why so many right-wing people are so eager and willing to introduce themselves and their topics by immediately insulting those who disagree with them? Trying to remember when my kids outgrew their tendency to insult "just because" --- thinking maybe it was between 12 and 15?

Anyway, I look forward to your future contributions of thoughtful, respectful and considered opinion and maybe even some facts.

Ciao,

Dia

Edited March 20, 2016 by dialamah

[Smallc]

Trudeau and the Liberals promised 3 consecutive deficits of 10 billion a year

And the economy is worse than expected (though how much worse remains to be seen)

they have delivered a first year deficit of between 30 - 40 billion

I didn't know that March 22nd had happened already.

and unemployment continues to rise

Wasn't unemployment rising before November 4th?

2019 can't come fast enough for Canadian tax payers

Conservatives are magical, aren't they?

[Cl Le]

Hi Clueless Lefties,

Welcome to the discussion forum. Can you please explain to me why so many right-wing people are so eager and willing to introduce themselves and their topics by immediately insulting those who disagree with them? Trying to remember when my kids outgrew their tendency to insult "just because" --- thinking maybe it was between 12 and 15?

Anyway, I look forward to your future contributions of thoughtful, respectful and considered opinion and maybe even some facts.

Ciao,

Dia

Those are facts and Canada's reality . Are you offended that the Liberals lied to you or that I am bringing it to your attention ?

[Smallc]

Those are facts

Out of context, misleading, and selective; with some utter falsehoods.

[Cl Le]

Out of context, misleading, and selective; with some utter falsehoods.

Does Canada not face a deficit of 30 - 40 billion ? Did they not promise Canadians three consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits then a balanced budget year four ? You realize they are meeting their four year goal in year one and if you work for a living , pay taxes and in particular have children you should be very concerned . The Liberals mislead and openly lied to Canadians and now we will pay the price !

[Smallc]

Does Canada not face a deficit of 30 - 40 billion ?

Possibly - because the economy is providing about $14B (the rest is contingency) less tax revenue than was predicted in the analysis of the 2015 budget provided by the PBO.

Did they not promise Canadians three consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits then a balanced budget year four

Using the data provided by the PBO, following budget 2015.

You realize they are meeting their four year goal in year one and if you work for a living , pay taxes and in particular have children you should be very concerned . The Liberals mislead and openly lied to Canadians and now we will pay the price !

Why should I be concerned?

[dre]

Does Canada not face a deficit of 30 - 40 billion ? Did they not promise Canadians three consecutive 10 billion dollar deficits then a balanced budget year four ? You realize they are meeting their four year goal in year one and if you work for a living , pay taxes and in particular have children you should be very concerned . The Liberals mislead and openly lied to Canadians and now we will pay the price !

Doesn't seem like people see things the way you do. Last poll I saw they had an approval rating of 64%. Enough to win a whopping majority if an election was called today. That pretty just leaves hog-farmers and creationists LOL

[Smallc]

Doesn't seem like people see things the way you do. Last poll I saw they had an approval rating of 64%.

That, btw, is higher than Harper's 60% peak. Only Chretien matched that in recent times.

[Cl Le]

So what you are saying is Canadians want irresponsible government spending and a long list of broken promises . I guess higher taxes , higher unemployment and selfies are the way to go if you want to get your hands on Canada's no limit credit card . I honestly thought Canadians where smarter than that but then you look at Ontario and their Liberal mess and you realize otherwise .

[Smallc]

So what you are saying is Canadians want irresponsible government spending and a long list of broken promises.

Is the list longer than that of anyone else at this point? Is the spending any more irresponsible than the last government?

I guess higher taxes

You were just complaining that taxes were lower ($1.2B) and so not revenue neutral. Which is it?

higher unemployment

Which was going up before November 4th

and selfies

Find me one Trudeau selfie.

[Argus]

Those are facts and Canada's reality . Are you offended that the Liberals lied to you or that I am bringing it to your attention ?

Probably at your name.

[Argus]

Doesn't seem like people see things the way you do. Last poll I saw they had an approval rating of 64%. Enough to win a whopping majority if an election was called today. That pretty just leaves hog-farmers and creationists LOL

No, it leaves those who have to pay the bills he's running up...