The Budget

[Wilber]

We still have a fragile economy.

Then why is the majority of the increase in deficit going into increased spending on social programs?

[Argus]

ya ya... the "fragile economy"... the "Great Harper Recession"! The one Canada entered later than and exited earlier than any other G7 country... the one Stats Canada defined as "short and mild", the one that lasted all of 3 quarters! That one right, hey Argus! The total Harper Conservative deficits - $144 Billion - oh my!

.

This is hilarious coming from a guy who was acting like the world was ending when Canada entered a brief technical recession late last year.

[Smallc]

Then why is the majority of the increase in deficit going into increased spending on social programs?

Giving money to both the poorest seniors and families with children is a sure-fire way to increase spending. Still, at $3B per year, that is less than the total new money dedicated to infrastructure for this year ($3.4B).

[waldo]

This is hilarious coming from a guy who was acting like the world was ending when Canada entered a brief technical recession late last year.

I did? I trust you've already pre-scouted and found a post you believe meets a challenge to your claim... lay it on me brotha! But c'mon, this is hilarious coming from a guy, you, whose level of hyperbolic premonitions, exaggerations and embellishment is renowned - it's legion!

.

[Wilber]

Giving money to both the poorest seniors and families with children is a sure-fire way to increase spending. Still, at $3B per year, that is less than the total new money dedicated to infrastructure for this year ($3.4B).

So the big recovery strategy is to just give a bunch of people money and tell them to go spend it? Genius, who knew it was that easy. What about the 23 billion in 16-17 just to administer the new child benifit?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Wilber

[Smallc]

So the big recovery strategy is to just give a bunch of people money and tell them to go spend it? Genius, who knew it was that easy. What about the 23 billion in 16-17 just to administer the new child benifit?

23 Billion is the gross cost. The net cost is ~$2B with the elimination of the old child benefit programs.

[Wilber]

23 Billion is the gross cost. The net cost is ~$2B with the elimination of the old child benefit programs.

2.5 billion this year and more than 3.1 billion next year.

[Smallc]

2.5 billion this year and more than 3.1 billion next year.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this years numbers. That in conjunction with the GIS increase makes it equal to the infrastructure investment increase in this budget.

[Wilber]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of this years numbers. That in conjunction with the GIS increase makes it equal to the infrastructure investment increase in this budget.

The point is, it is borrowed money for a program that will never go away and the cost of which will increase yearly, together with the interest on that borrowed money in perpetuity.

[Smallc]

The point is, it is borrowed money for a program that will never go away and the cost of which will increase yearly, together with the interest on that borrowed money in perpetuity.

With that logic, we'd never have any government programs.

[SunnyWays]

With that logic, we'd never have any government programs.

Not quite - we might never have any additional government programs......and relative to other countries, I think we've got it pretty darn good! Who says we always have to have more? Isn't that what inspires "entitlement"?

[cybercoma]

Coyne voted NDP because he hates government.

I never thought of him his way, but now that you say it he did say that the reason he voted NDP was because "the Conservatives don't deserve to be re-elected and the Liberals don't deserve a majority" (link below). This fits perfectly with what you're saying. His reasoning has nothi to do with the qualities of he NDP and everything to do with him hate the sitting government and wanting the imminent replacement to be neutered.

Link: https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/656131860888690688

[Smallc]

I've watched him over the years. He's a classic libertarian. He cares not what Canadians want or expect from their government.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Not quite - we might never have any additional government programs......and relative to other countries, I think we've got it pretty darn good! Who says we always have to have more? Isn't that what inspires "entitlement"?

So you're a 21st century Amish? We have exactly what we need now, and should remain frozen in time?

Canadians feel differently, no matter who is in power.

[BC_chick]

get over yourself! The target was with respect to 2019/2020; you're choosing to extend upon that another 3 years... notwithstanding, again, that was before getting a look at the real state of the numbers/'books' and a continued declining oil revenue impact... add in the (some are saying) purposeful too conservative projections on growth and oil price on the deficit forecasts.

.

Me get over myself? Wow, that's rich considering you're the one defending a blatant liar.

He promised 10 billion for 3 years (total $30 billion) and now it's become $113 billion over the same period. Price of oil has not changed so much since he put forth his election promise 7 mere months ago to justify four times increase in the budget.

I still think he's better than Harper but this defending him no matter what is ridiculous. Reminds me of Trump who says his supporters would still back him even if he shot someone on the street.

Are you seriously this partisan?

[waldo]

Are you seriously this partisan?

are you? I suggested getting over yourself given your most direct "blatant lie" wording attachment... which you've now doubled-down on. Notwithstanding I tried to correct your fuzzy-math once already, you again improperly claim $113 billion over 3 years - try again. There's oil price... and there's oil price projection/forecast... something, apparently, very hard to do given oversupply and demand issues in recent years. And... growth projections. I would expect someone so implying to be non-partisan could speak to just what oil price and growth projections were a part of election campaign statements... most particularly when rising to the level of "lie/liar labeling".

.

.

[Wilber]

With that logic, we'd never have any government programs.

Would you borrow money you can't afford to pay back in order to donate to a food bank and then pass that debt on to your grand kids because your kids won't be able to afford to pay it back either? If they want to donate to a food bank they will have to find the money themselves as well as carry the debt you incurred, either that or borrow more and pass the additional debt on to their grand kids.

I'm not against improvements in social programs but not at the cost of borrowing money that can never be paid back in order to do it. All that does is increase the burden of maintaining what you already have because you have to service debt for old stuff you couldn't afford in the first place.

[Smallc]

You make the improper claim that we can't afford the money we're borrowing. That's a faulty assumption.

[Wilber]

You make the improper claim that we can't afford the money we're borrowing. That's a faulty assumption.

Play with semantics all you want but I am making the claim we can't afford the increased program spending because we have to borrow money we will never pay back in order to do it.

[cybercoma]

Play with semantics all you want but I am making the claim we can't afford the increased program spending because we have to borrow money we will never pay back in order to do it.

It's not semantics when the entire point of your argument is that we shouldn't borrow because we can't afford it. If we can afford it then your argument has no merit. I don't know if we can, but a lot of economists seem to think we can and have voiced that the deficit concerns are overblown partisan bickering. Edited March 28, 2016 by cybercoma

[PIK]

Ezra says trudeau has added something to the budget that allows Canada in banks to take our money if they get into trouble. Anyone hear that?

[waldo]

Ezra says trudeau has added something to the budget that allows Canada in banks to take our money if they get into trouble. Anyone hear that?

Ezra Levant says! Then it must be so - the Rebel Commander never gets it wrong... on purpose yet!

no - the new Liberal budget does not allow 'bail-ins' on depositors accounts. But c'mon MLW member PIK... this is straight outa the Harper Conservative 2013 budget where the former and late Jim Flaherty first proposed the "bank bail-in regime". From the 2016 Liberal budget:

[SunnyWays]

So you're a 21st century Amish? We have exactly what we need now, and should remain frozen in time?

Canadians feel differently, no matter who is in power.

In some ways maybe so. Politics seems to have trained people to always expect more - instead of respecting what we already have - especially when so many countries are so fiscally challenged. There are only so many dollars in the kitty - it's OK to shuffle them around from time to time to address the needs of the day......and hey, if we have some good years, let's do some short-term spending but surely if we've learned anything from the Global Financial crisis, it's that governments must have aspirations to live within a budget. I saw no major difficulty with the Liberal election promise of modest deficits returning to balance by the end of their mandate. I am extremely uncomfortable with a government that has not only abandoned that promise - but now, only 6 months removed from their election promise, has abandoned even the aspiration to return to balance.

[rotary]

Ezra says trudeau has added something to the budget that allows Canada in banks to take our money if they get into trouble. Anyone hear that?

You actually listen to Ezra? How about Trump? Thought so. Oh my!

[Wilber]

It's not semantics when the entire point of your argument is that we shouldn't borrow because we can't afford it. If we can afford it then your argument has no merit. I don't know if we can, but a lot of economists seem to think we can and have voiced that the deficit concerns are overblown partisan bickering.

You want to borrow money you have no intention of paying back, in order to increase program spending that will just increase and can't and won't be sustainable without continued borrowing.

The cost of servicing the present debt is about the same as the projected deficit, so basically the government is borrowing 30 billion this year to pay interest on money it already owes in order to make this budget work.

In 2010 our federal debt was about 550 billion and and between 1974 and 2010 according to Paul Hellyer ( a Liberal) Canadians paid $1.1 trillion in order to service that debt without paying off any of the principle.

Just because someone will lend you money and you can afford to pay the interest only, is no reason to borrow.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Wilber