The Budget

[Argus]

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

Did Jean Chretien balance the budget his first year in office? His second? His third?

[Argus]

Canadians didn't vote for that.

They didn't vote to stack an additional $113 Billion on top of the debt their children will have to pay off either.

[Argus]

That's what I meant yeah... the pessimistic forecasts. Private sector economists are predicting 6B less per year for the deficits than the government projects.

Which is only true if there are no new big expensive programs next budget, which there will be. More money for natives, more money for infrastructure, more money for carbon reduction, more money for buying off voters. Just like daddy did.

[waldo]

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

speaking of: as a relative comparison... to that... the last 2 years projection are lower than most of the latter Harper Conservative deficits. And those wascally Liberals playing on conservative growth... surely that's not timed to the next election to showcase doing much better than projected - surely!

.

[Argus]

What burns me is the money going to the natives ,can be spent any why the want. And in 4 yrs I will bet we will see no changes except the chiefs be living in bigger homes and newer cars.

Absolutely. This is unconditional money, gift money, at the same time as the government is cutting back on oversight by removing the transparency laws. Oh, you can bet the chiefs are high fiving each other today. Billions for water treatment on reserves despite the ongoing issue of the lack of maintenance and proper oversight of existing water treatment facilities. The last time there was a big scandal about bad water on a particular reserve it emerged the water filtration system was being run by the Chief's alcoholic brother in law who had no training and put in almost no effort.

[waldo]

unconditional money

citation request vis-a-vis 2016 budgeted funding for First Nations

.

[Argus]

Scene. Middle class family living room. Mom and dad are all smiles, celebrating their winfall. Little Johnny walks in.

"Good news, son!" says dad. "We got thousands in new money from the government!"

"Yes, thank you, dear!" says mom with a laugh.

"Thank me?" little Johnny says in confusion.

"You're gonna pay for it, son!" says dad, as he drops a heavy weight of chain over his son's shoulders.

"Urk," goes Johnny, his knees getting wobbly.

"And it's only gonna get bigger, son!" says mom gleefully.

"Yep! We'll be voting in the Liberals again for sure!" says dad.

"It's Sunny ways!" says mom, high fiving her husband.

"This is heavy!" Johnny complains.

"Wait till you get older and have to pay for it," Dad says, snickering.

[Smallc]

Did Jean Chretien balance the budget his first year in office? His second? His third?

if Harper was made to spend the money, as you and others contend, then it should have been easy to immediately eliminate the deficit.

[Smallc]

They didn't vote to stack an additional $113 Billion on top of the debt their children will have to pay off either.

They didn't vote for a baseline that is worse by $12B, but that's what we have.

The Liberals actually scaled back spending in many areas from their election promises.

[cybercoma]

Did Jean Chretien balance the budget his first year in office? His second? His third?

Did Harper his seventh, eighth or ninth year in office?

[Argus]

if Harper was made to spend the money, as you and others contend, then it should have been easy to immediately eliminate the deficit.

He did it faster than Chretien, and unlike Chretien was not doing it in boom years with the US economy pulling us along.

[Argus]

They didn't vote for a baseline that is worse by $12B, but that's what we have.

No it's not. Six billion of that is from a newly established slush fund - excuse me, contingency fund - and six billion from lowering estimates of what income the government will receive over he coming years.

[Argus]

There is no money in this budget to help the economy, to help the private sector. There are no tax incentives or policies to encourage new economic development, new resource development, or private sector spending. Small business did not get the tax break the Liberals had promised them. This is a budget from people who think only government is important in driving the economy.

[Smallc]

No it's not. Six billion of that is from a newly established slush fund

Harper had a contingency fund. Is that what his was, too?

[Smallc]

There is no money in this budget to help the economy, to help the private sector.

I've heard a lot of disagreement with your position on that.

There are no tax incentives

good - we need to simplify the tax code.

or policies to encourage new economic development, new resource development, or private sector spending.

Again there's a lot of disagreement with you on private sector spending.

Small business did not get the tax break the Liberals had promised them.

Not this year. They have other budgets to come.

This is a budget from people who think only government is important in driving the economy.

This is a budget that delivers on much of what we voted Liberal for.

[cybercoma]

Harper had a contingency fund. Is that what his was, too?

The cognitive bias is so glaring, I don't know how you continue to respond to it. You're not changing anyone's mind here.

[SunnyWays]

Andrew Coyne hits many of the right notes in his analysis:

Problem: to justify such an extraordinary burst of spending as this budget projects, the government needed some kind of crisis. A recession, perhaps? Alas, the economy is not in recession.

.....................................................

So instead the budget returns to an earlier Liberal theme: the forlorn Canadian middle class, struggling to get by, working harder for less pay while watching all of the income gains going to the top 1 per cent.

.......................................................................................

But neither has been true since then. In the last two decades median household incomes have grown by 20 per cent after inflation. The share of income going to the top 1 per cent has been falling steadily since 2006, and is no higher now than it was in 1998.

.........................................................

The Liberals are importing the problems of three decades ago into the present. In short, the budget’s whole premise is a fraud.

........................................................

Needless to say, this is not what the voters were sold last October. Not only is the deficit, at nearly $30 billion, three times what the Liberals ran on. Not only do they no longer promise to balance the budget by the end of their term (the deficit for fiscal 2021 is now projected at $14 billion); not only does the budget offer no timeline for when it will be returned to balance; it doesn’t even offer a timeline for when it will offer a timeline. “The Government will set a timeline for balancing the budget when growth is forecast to remain on a sustainably higher track.” Translation: if deficits fail to produce the promised higher growth, the government will go on running deficits.

..........................................................

But why worry? Assuming we can go another five years without a recession, seven years after the last, and assuming no large or sustained increase in interest rates from their current historic lows, the debt may very well stay under control. But then I imagine people assumed much the same in 1972.

Link: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/andrew-coyne-federal-budget-2016-is-one-from-the-1970s-to-address-problems-of-1980s

[Argus]

Harper had a contingency fund. Is that what his was, too?

The difference was that if that money was unneeded it would not be spent. It's difficult to believe that will happen under Trudeau.

We still have to fund Bombardier, after all, and natives and carbon reduction.

[Argus]

good - we need to simplify the tax code.

I did not say the tax code was simplified. In fact, the Liberals have added little niche tax writeoffs similar to the ones they claim to have disdained, like the one for teachers spending on school supplies.

Again there's a lot of disagreement with you on private sector spending.

Really? From whom? Names, please.

[Smallc]

I did not say the tax code was simplified. In fact, the Liberals have added little niche tax writeoffs similar to the ones they claim to have disdained, like the one for teachers spending on school supplies.

Whilst doing away with several other tax complications. Fitness and arts tax credits, as well as the UCCB are gone.

[Argus]

Whilst doing away with several other tax complications. Fitness and arts tax credits, as well as the UCCB are gone.

You are attempting to distract from the main point of there being nothing in this budget to encourage economic growth, and that the government went back on its promise to cut taxes for small business.

[dre]

We currently spend just under $25 billion a year on interest on the debt. Current Liberal plans will increase that by another $10 billion.

In terms of real value we will still probably be paying less in the end... by a small margin.

[cybercoma]

"encourage economic growth" is a euphemism for "corporate welfare."

[dre]

There is no money in this budget to help the economy, to help the private sector.

Almost all of the money will help the private sector.

[Argus]

In terms of real value we will still probably be paying less in the end... by a small margin.

By what logic do you come up with that?