The Budget

[Smallc]

"Social infrastructure" is not infrastructure.

From the government of New Zealand:

http://www.nzsif.co.nz/Social-Infrastructure/What-is-Social-Infrastructure/

[Cl Le]

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.

You mean Canada's favorite P/T drama teacher may be in a position that is way over his head , who would of thought . I wonder how many Liberal supporters can draw a correlation between bad decisions today and their standard of living tomorrow ?

[The_Squid]

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.

So.... who amassed most of Canada's debt? And why was the dollar so high in recent years despite adding more to the debt under Harper than ever before?

Your theory needs work....

[Hudson Jones]

Why is there so much crying and whining about a budget and spending that was promised during the campaign and now has been delivered?

[Bonam]

Why is there so much crying and whining about a budget and spending that was promised during the campaign and now has been delivered?

What kind of question is this? Just because something was promised in a campaign, doesn't mean everyone has to support it.

[Bryan]

So.... who amassed most of Canada's debt?

Trudeau Sr.

[Hudson Jones]

Oh and is this okay?

Stephen Harper 2006 - 2014 - Debt: $541.9 billion - 12.6% increase

Edited March 23, 2016 by Hudson Jones

[Bryan]

Why is there so much crying and whining about a budget and spending that was promised during the campaign and now has been delivered?

The deficit is THREE TIMES bigger than what was promised.

[dre]

Schools, jails, hospitals, and government owned housing.

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

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

Not only that but the forecast is based on much lower growth than we will probably see... at least according to most economists. So the deficit projections are 6 billion per year lower than we will probably see.

And even if economic growth remains flat the increase in the debt is still around the rate of inflation (meaning much of it gets inflated away) and the debt/gdp ratio will be lower than today.

[Bryan]

Oh and is this okay?

Stephen Harper 2006 - 2014 - Debt: $541.9 billion - 12.6% increase

No, it was not OK that the Liberals and NDP who held the majority of the seats in the house rejected Flaherty's Nov 2008 fiscal update (after two consecutive surpluses) and instead demanded a substantial increase in spending. It's also not oK, that even though they finally agreed on an amount they would support, that they still complained that it was not enough. Thankfully, once Harper got a majority, he erased that deficit in record time.

[eyeball]

Why is there so much crying and whining about a budget and spending that was promised during the campaign and now has been delivered?

Just a hunch but, maybe the same reason there was so much crying and whining during the campaign?

[Smallc]

.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

No, it was not OK that the Liberals and NDP who held the majority of the seats in the house rejected Flaherty's Nov 2008 fiscal update (after two consecutive surpluses) and instead demanded a substantial increase in spending.

Which doesn't explain the deficits in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Smallc

[Bryan]

Wait... is the new Child benefit taxable? I know the Liberals initially promised it would not be, but I've read two articles now that say it is.

If it is taxed, and the credits that offset that (like income splitting and child sport credit) are gone... then for many families this would end up being a tax increase wrapped up in a shit sandwich.

[Smallc]

If it is taxed, and the credits that offset that (like income splitting and child sport credit) are gone... then for many families this would end up being a tax increase wrapped up in a shit sandwich.

Do you have a citation?

[Bryan]

Which doesn't explain the deficits in 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014.

It does if you have even a little bit of fiscal acumen, and are actually being honest. That's an amazingly fast recovery, especially considering they did it while also cutting taxes, continuing to strengthen social spending, and increasing government revenues.

[Bryan]

Do you have a citation?

No, that's why I asked the question -- random Facebook feed posts that I'm not finding now.

[Smallc]

It does if you have even a little bit of fiscal acumen, and are actually being honest.

If the deficit was forced on them, as you assert, it should have been simple to get rid of when they had the decision making power to themselves.

[Smallc]

No, that's why I asked the question -- random Facebook feed posts that I'm not finding now.

Everything I can find says it's not taxable. Never believe what you read on Facebook unless you can verify it.

[Topaz]

There's been so many different views on this on the news shows that as far as the deficit, I think we should wait to see what the results are by the next election and no one knows how things in the economy is going to be. It's way too soon to judge.

[Bonam]

There's been so many different views on this on the news shows that as far as the deficit, I think we should wait to see what the results are by the next election and no one knows how things in the economy is going to be. It's way too soon to judge.

Yep just spend money you don't have now, decide if it was a good idea later.

[Bryan]

Everything I can find says it's not taxable. Never believe what you read on Facebook unless you can verify it.

It wasn't Facebook posts, it was linked articles, but I still agree with the sentiment. According to the Financial Post, it's NOT taxed:

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/family-finance/federal-budget-2016-promises-to-help-middle-class-wallets-while-targeting-wealthy-canadians-a-classic-soak-the-roach-scheme

[Bryan]

I just calculated what my benefit would be here:

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/tool-outil/ccb-ace-en.html

According to the calculator, the benefit is a lot less than the numbers the LPC are touting. With the UCCB gone, income splitting gone, fitness and arts credits gone, for us it's a fairly significant tax increase.

[dre]

Just a hunch but, maybe the same reason there was so much crying and whining during the campaign?

Lets be honest here... Conservatives would slam this budget no matter WHAT was in it. If the Liberals balanced the budget and cut spending in a soft economy they would have been slammed just as bad.

Partisans are not honest people.

[Bryan]

Lets be honest here... Conservatives would slam this budget no matter WHAT was in it. If the Liberals balanced the budget and cut spending in a soft economy they would have been slammed just as bad.

Partisans are not honest people.

I'm sure they would have found something to complain about, but balancing the budget and cutting spending was specifically what the CPC was calling for prior to the budget's release. They wouldn't complain if it happened, but they probably would claim to have influenced the about-face.