The Budget

[Argus]

A cornucopia of treasures, a Santa Clause budget for the liberal faithful, but with nothing much to 'kick start' the economy.

A big deficit, with a promise of more big deficits in the years to come, and no plan whatsoever for balancing the budget at any point in the future.

Program spending as a percentage of GDP is set to rise from 12.9 per cent to 14.6 per cent next year. What we are seeing is the creation of a long-term structural deficit, not temporary cyclical investments.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/john-ivison-with-federal-budget-liberals-have-consigned-canada-to-118-6-billion-deficits-into-next-decade

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-budget-2016-liberals-project-30b-deficit-with-no-plan-to-return-to-a-surplus-by-2019

Also, plans to re-equip the Canadian military to prevent rust-out have essentially been cancelled. There will be no new military procurement spending during the mandate of this government.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/budget-2016-military-purchases-postponed-but-veterans-get-billions-1.2828114

Edited March 22, 2016 by Argus

[Hydraboss]

Program spending as a percentage of GDP is set to rise from 12.9 per cent to 14.6 per cent next year. What we are seeing is the creation of a long-term structural deficit, not temporary cyclical investments.

Hmmm.... Isn't it about time for some small-c conservative Liberal supporters to come along and defend this? I thought the first thing was to defend having a "small" deficit, and then THAT didn't matter because the debt-to-GDP ratio would continue to come down, and then THAT didn't matter because the debt-to-GDP ratio wouldn't increase at least....

....and now we have this. The first of several destructive budgets to be tabled by a completely inept group. Welcome to Canada indeed.

[Bonam]

I'm sure people will soon come in this thread and explain to you that deficits "don't matter" and that you're an ignorant neanderthal for thinking governments should even try to balance budgets.

Spend spend spend.

[Bryan]

They took away the child fitness tax credit too.

[dre]

The budgets is about what everyone expected. One thing that's interesting is that the targets are so conservative. The deficit numbers are based on the governments growth forecasts which are much lower than forecasts by private sector economists. Seems like they are intentionally setting the bar really low. Likely deficits over the next 6 years are more likely to 80-90 billion.

[Hydraboss]

Likely deficits over the next 6 years are more likely to 80-90 billion.

Well, that's a relief. For a minute there I thought the Liberals were spending more than taxpayers could afford.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure people will soon come in this thread and explain to you that deficits "don't matter" and that you're an ignorant neanderthal for thinking governments should even try to balance budgets.

Spend spend spend.

Interesting...why was it considered to be mortal sin if/when PM Harper did it ? What changed, besides "Sunny Ways" ?

[Smallc]

Hmmm.... Isn't it about time for some small-c conservative Liberal supporters to come along and defend this?

Will do - this is a return to pre Harper levels.

[Smallc]

This budget is - hugely - good for me personally, so, thumbs up.

[Smoke]

This budget is - hugely - good for me personally, so, thumbs up.

Typical left wing thinking......oh and let someone else pay for it down the road.

[Bryan]

Crap. Income splitting is gone too.

[dre]

Well, that's a relief. For a minute there I thought the Liberals were spending more than taxpayers could afford.

Well... they are borrowing at roughly the rate of inflation so its probably affordable. In terms of real value our debt will decrease over that time or stay the same.

[Smallc]

Typical left wing thinking......oh and let someone else pay for it down the road.

I remember a government that ran $130B in deficits within the last decade. I didn't complain about them, because it made sense then, just like now.

[Bonam]

For all the talk of needing to run deficits to invest in infrastructure, the actual infrastructure spending seems to be a piddly $3.4 billion. That's like what, the cost of one extra line of light rail / skytrain / subway somewhere? One new bridge somewhere?

Canada has an "infrastructure deficit" of over $100 billion. Woulda been nice to see if we are gonna add over $100 billion to the federal debt, to see more of that infrastructure brought up to date, rather than spending all this borrowed money on vote-buying handouts.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bonam

[Smallc]

For all the talk of needing to run deficits to invest in infrastructure, the actual infrastructure spending seems to be a piddly $3.4 billion.

It's $11.9B over two years and $120B over 10 years. $3.4 is the portion dedicated to transit in the next 2 - 3 years. That's in addition to the $6 - 7B per year that Harper promised.

[Smallc]

retracted.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Bonam]

It's $11.9B over two years and $120B over 10 years.

Link?

[Cl Le]

This is what happens when imbeciles vote for a hairdo and a name . Trudeau couldn't get a job in the private sector , raft instructor and camp counselor don't count , so he will bankrupt this great country instead . The Liberals will be shown the exit in 2019 and I suspect by 2018 anyone admitting in public that they vote Liberal federally may not enjoy the ensuing track meet . Liberals got confused , when Trudeau said he was a feminist they thought he said economist .

[Smallc]

Link?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/22/public-transit-unsexy-infrastructure-gets-nod-in-federal-budget.html

I'm no longer sure if it's all new money. I'm reading conflicting things. Apparently, you were right, and it's about $1B short of what was originally promised. The $11.9B total is over 5 years, contrary to what I read somewhere else.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Everything was less than promised. The new child benefit is also about $2B per year less than promised. It was all part of keeping the deficit under $30B.

[Cruze]

BIG DEBT = LOW DOLLAR = Vunerability to Interest moves = Predetory moves by bigger players to rip the country of it's commodities and it's intellectual properties and it's political stability.

[Smallc]

,

Edited March 22, 2016 by Smallc

[Bonam]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/22/public-transit-unsexy-infrastructure-gets-nod-in-federal-budget.html

I'm no longer sure if it's all new money. I'm reading conflicting things. Apparently, you were right, and it's about $1B short of what was originally promised. The $11.9B total is over 5 years, contrary to what I read somewhere else.

"Social infrastructure" is not infrastructure.

I see $3.4 billion for transit, $2 billion for water, and $2.2 billion for first nations water infrastructure, and then I see social programs they are trying to fund under the guise of infrastructure for some reason.

So there's $7.6 billion in infrastructure spending over 5 years. I also don't see anything regarding the $120 billion you mentioned (there's a vague statement that infrastructure spending should total $60 billion once you include some nebulous "phase 2", but again this includes "social infrastructure" which isn't infrastructure). I find this level of infrastructure spending very underwhelming given the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to be added to the national debt over the next decade.

If all this $30 billion in deficit spending was going to build new roads, bridges, and public transit projects (or repair/maintain existing ones), I would be much less likely to complain. Instead, almost all the new spending is going to fund social programs, which we will have to pay for every single year forever, while the infrastructure will continue to crumble.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Bonam

[WestCoastRunner]

Liberals got confused , when Trudeau said he was a feminist they thought he said economist .

Is calling Trudeau a bad thing? I've read a few posts here that call him that in a derogatory manner. Can you expand on why you think it's a bad thing?

[Smallc]

"Social infrastructure" is not infrastructure.

Schools, jails, hospitals, and government owned housing.

So there's $7.6 billion in infrastructure spending over 5 years. I also don't see anything regarding the $120 billion you mentioned (there's a vague statement that infrastructure spending should total $60 billion once you include some nebulous "phase 2", but again this includes "social infrastructure" which isn't infrastructure). I find this level of infrastructure spending very underwhelming given the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to be added to the national debt over the next decade.

Social infrastructure is infrastructure. All of this is in addition to earlier investments from the previous government.

There's even more after that — "more than $120 billion in the next decade" according to a government press release — but the 269-page budget itself was bereft of details on that spending.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/budget-deficit-infrastructure-1.3502940

If all this $30 billion in deficit spending was going to build new roads, bridges, and public transit projects (or repair/maintain existing ones), I would be much less likely to complain. Instead, almost all the new spending is going to fund social programs, which we will have to pay for every single year forever, while the infrastructure will continue to crumble.

Over half the deficit is because of a worse baseline ($12B) and a larger than norman contingency ($5B).

Edited March 23, 2016 by Smallc