Canada's History of Debt and Deficit

[Smallc]

Continued from the thread dealing with what Canada will look like post 2019.  

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Continued from the thread dealing with what Canada will look like post 2019.  

Are you going to post your CBC cite again to show that the Liberals took four years to eliminate the deficit?

1993-94  -38.5

1994-95  -36.6

1995-96  -30.0

1996-97   -8.7

1997-98    2.9

 

 

[Smallc]

The Liberals didn't make a budget until 94-95.  Every citation I find shows the the budget being balanced 2 years later with a surplus of $2B in 1996-1997.

[?Impact]

Table 15 of the Fiscal Reference Tables is the most relevant when looking at history of debt.

 

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The Liberals didn't make a budget until 94-95.  Every citation I find shows the the budget being balanced 2 years later with a surplus of $2B in 1996-1997.

Nope. Sorry. The 93-94 budget is Chretien's, AS YOUR OWN CITE SAYS.

Edited January 2, 2017 by Argus

[Smallc]

Chretien wasn't even the Prime Minister until November 1993.  

[Smallc]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Table 15 of the Fiscal Reference Tables is the most relevant when looking at history of debt.

 

It's useful, but when discussing the reported budget deficit, it doesn't always correspond.  You can have a surplus and increased debt, as strange as that sounds.

[Smallc]

But - there are several disagreeing sources - some from the same place:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/budget/

This one shows 1997-1998.

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Smallc said:

It's useful, but when discussing the reported budget deficit, it doesn't always correspond.  You can have a surplus and increased debt, as strange as that sounds.

Table 15 includes both accumulated deficit and interest bearing debt. Yes, it is important to look at interest bearing debt as well, for example during the Harper budgets the interest bearing debt increased by $350 billion ($332 billion if you want to give him credit for the massive surplus he inherited on a golden platter).

[Smallc]

This also shows 1997-1998:

http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/provincial-forecasts/prov_fiscal.pdf

I'm finding it hard to get consistent numbers.

[Smallc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/23/canada-budget-deficit-comparison_n_9532294.html

 

This doesn't even show a 1996-1997 fiscal year - I'm wondering what actually happened in that two year period.

[Smallc]

So it seems you're right Argus - it was 1 year later that I was led to believe, so I apologize.  It was done within 3 years, and not 2.

[taxme]

56 minutes ago, Smallc said:

Continued from the thread dealing with what Canada will look like post 2019.  

Check out the Comer Report. Canada will always be in debt until our politicians stop allowing private banksters to create our money, then loan us that money at interest. Nice set up for the banksters but not for Canadians. 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

Check out the Comer Report.

What specifically are you referencing? I assume this is the COMER (William Krehm & Ann Emmett) vs. Bank of Canada lawsuit that was thrown out and costs awarded to the Bank of Canada, but is there a specific 'report' you are talking about. 

[taxme]

21 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

What specifically are you referencing? I assume this is the COMER (William Krehm & Ann Emmett) vs. Bank of Canada lawsuit that was thrown out and costs awarded to the Bank of Canada, but is there a specific 'report' you are talking about. 

Yes, the Comer versus the Bank Of Canada report. I have tried to find it on the internet but cannot. I wonder why? I read that it was Harper that ordered the media to not mention the report on the news. If that were the case, it is no wonder I have no respect for our Canadian politicians. Here was an opportunity for our fake and phony politicians to explain to us as to how the creation of money really works and they blew it on purpose. Even the media goes along with those politicians. Some freedom of the press that we have here in Canada, eh? 

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, taxme said:

Yes, the Comer versus the Bank Of Canada report. I have tried to find it on the internet but cannot. I wonder why?

Who wrote the report you are talking about? If you mean the actual court decision, that is easy to find. The COMER website is also easy to find.

[taxme]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Who wrote the report you are talking about? If you mean the actual court decision, that is easy to find. The COMER website is also easy to find.

I found it. The Comer Report(Committtee on Monetary and Economic Report). One can find their website by typing in Comer. All explained there.

[poochy]

For those that keep repeating that Mulroney had lower interest rates while ignoring he had a huge debt piled on to him by PET, you are in effect lying about the reality.  A lower rate applied to a huge number rang up by the pervious guy still amounts to big payments, and btw, why did the previous guy borrow so much when rates were so high?  Like most liberals, probably because it's what's good for them now that matters, let the next guy clean up the mess.  Not to worry, this government is shattering all records, and if the conservatives win again and have to make cuts the will be vilified far more for it than Chretien was, because they are evil, Chretien was a good guy, a nice liberal, besides, the debt was Mulroney's fault.

[?Impact]

13 minutes ago, poochy said:

A lower rate applied to a huge number rang up by the pervious guy still amounts to big payments,

The peak year for debt management was 95-96, and second was 96-97 - that would make Mulroney the 'previous guy'

[Derek 2.0]

And quietly released the Friday before Christmas.....the future of Canadian Debt and Deficit:

 

Quote

 

The age-related deceleration in economic growth in Canada will take place amidst other powerful, slow-moving global forces. As in Canada, the world population is aging and productivity growth has slowed across OECD countries. These structural forces are paving the way to slower global growth for the next number of years.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, from the governance side:

 

 

Quote

 

With inflation expected to remain around 2 per cent per year, this negative impact on economic growth will translate into lower growth in nominal gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest single measure of the tax base.

Slower nominal GDP growth will thus reduce the growth rate of government revenues, thereby limiting the capacity of governments to continue to maintain the growth rates of public expenditure at levels as high as in the past. At the same time, population aging is also expected to put upward pressure on public expenditure, notably for age-related programs such as elderly benefits.

 

 

Since budgets won't balance themselves, expect tax hikes and drops in public services.......another interesting fact found within their numbers.....despite Trudeau promising a debt:GDP no greater than 27%, it now projected to remain over 30% into the next decade.... which would put us on course (based on this rate continuing and our economies expected increase) for over $1 1/2 Trillion dollars of Federal debt by the middle of the century.

 

Trudeau economy pt II...........

[Smallc]

Those potential projected deficits will mean that Canada will end up looking exactly the same as it does now, with no real change in debt to GDP or adjusted carrying costs.  Of course, no one can predict out to 2055 anyway.

[Derek 2.0]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

Those potential projected deficits will mean that Canada will end up looking exactly the same as it does now, with no real change in debt to GDP or adjusted carrying costs.  Of course, no one can predict out to 2055 anyway.

 

Canada will look exactly the same? Huh? Did you read this government's own release, that clearly states they expect lower economic growth and decreasing government revenue? This will be a generational challenge, a generation that will look far different then it does today or in decades past..... 

[Argus]

Finance department now predicting DECADES of deficits under Liberals. What did I say months ago? That this Liberal government would never turn in a balanced budget. It's ideologically incapable of putting any importance into the effort. And a substantial number of its supporters pay no income tax anyway.

"The budget will balance itself." Uh huh. 

 

The federal government is projecting decades of deficits as a new Finance Canada report shows Ottawa’s long-term finances have deteriorated considerably over the past two years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-projects-decades-of-deficits-as-federal-finances-worsen/article33512275/

Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

Finance department now predicting DECADES of deficits under Liberals. What did I say months ago? That this Liberal government would never turn in a balanced budget. It's ideologically incapable of putting any importance into the effort. And a substantial number of its supporters pay no income tax anyway.

"The budget will balance itself." Uh huh. 

 

The federal government is projecting decades of deficits as a new Finance Canada report shows Ottawa’s long-term finances have deteriorated considerably over the past two years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-projects-decades-of-deficits-as-federal-finances-worsen/article33512275/

 

Exactly, our economic growth through this mandate will be lower on average then what it was through the recession a few years back and the doldrums of the 90s and 80s.......even lower then the growth we saw during PET's dumpster fire in the 70s.........

[?Impact]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

The federal government is projecting decades of deficits as a new Finance Canada report shows Ottawa’s long-term finances have deteriorated considerably over the past two years.

What has deteriorated is the growth predictions. The rosy picture painted by the previous government is not materializing, they predicted 2.2 growth for '15-'20 and the current outlook is 1.7.