Canada's History of Debt and Deficit

[DogOnPorch]

Well...they're also not in power. JT isn't following the Conservative's economic plans...he's got a Platinum card with rewards and he's a-gonna rack-it-up.

[Derek 2.0]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

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.

 

The Harper government also didn't plan for a $30 billion deficit, a deficit this government has no plan to dig out from........as noted in Argus's link, a recession now could blow the government's debt:GDP projections out of the water........Trudeau's carbon tax will only make our economic prospects even more bleak, namely with a pro-growth Trump administration.

 

The Trudeau government has no plan to right our economy, and its own numbers show it will see less growth for a generation contrasted with decades past.

[Argus]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

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.

Maybe what has deteriorated is the fact that resource companies can't get anything started because of layer after layer of red tape and other companies are packing up and leaving Canada because of the added cost of carbon taxes. Meanwhile the US has no carbon taxes and is lowering corporate taxes, while being far far more friendly to business of every kind.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

The Harper government also didn't plan for a $30 billion deficit, a deficit this government has no plan to dig out from

$10 billion is new spending, most of that deficit is from lower revenue (ie. directly linked to the difference between the previous rosy projections and todays ones).

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

$10 billion is new spending, most of that deficit is from lower revenue (ie. directly linked to the difference between the previous rosy projections and todays ones).

Yeah that's crap. The budget was, if not completely balanced, balanced to within a billion or two. So almost all the $30 billion is new spending. And it's not temporary spending on infrastructure. Most of it is on permanent new programs.

Nor have the Liberals haven't yet accounted for all the extra money they want to spend on health care and natives.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

Yeah that's crap. The budget was, if not completely balanced, balanced to within a billion or two. So almost all the $30 billion is new spending. And it's not temporary spending on infrastructure. Most of it is on permanent new programs.

Nor have the Liberals haven't yet accounted for all the extra money they want to spend on health care and natives.

 

Exactly, and the have no plan to balance the books, or actually grow the economy.......its telling their own numbers show on average Canada's economy will grow less then what its done for decades......that should set off alarm bells for people in their 20s and 30s.....its very worrisome for parents that have kids that will have to live through Trudeau's economic Dark Ages..... 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

its telling their own numbers show on average Canada's economy will grow less then what its done for decades

Rate of growth has been on a steady downward path since the 60's, that is reality. Do you want to get back to 5% growth like the Twump is promising? Do you remember the runaway inflation of the 70's? What is equally important is population growth compared to GDP growth, something nobody seems to take into account.

[Derek 2.0]

5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Rate of growth has been on a steady downward path since the 60's, that is reality. Do you want to get back to 5% growth like the Twump is promising? Do you remember the runaway inflation of the 70's? What is equally important is population growth compared to GDP growth, something nobody seems to take into account.

 

The report takes into account the far more important decline in workplace population..........Trudeau bringing in unskilled and unable to work immigrants won't address this coming shortfall and the impact that too will have on the economy. 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Trudeau bringing in unskilled and unable to work immigrants won't address this coming shortfall and the impact that too will have on the economy. 

Where do you get that from? I looked at the statistics up to Q3/16 and I don't see any appreciable trend difference. Yes there are a few more sponsored parent/grandparent in '16 than there were in '15, but actually less than in '14. The only category that increased slightly seems to be sponsored spouse/partner. We already knew that there was a refugee increase, but that was not about immigrants that was about addressing a different issue.

[Derek 2.0]

4 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Where do you get that from? I looked at the statistics up to Q3/16 and I don't see any appreciable trend difference. Yes there are a few more sponsored parent/grandparent in '16 than there were in '15, but actually less than in '14. The only category that increased slightly seems to be sponsored spouse/partner. We already knew that there was a refugee increase, but that was not about immigrants that was about addressing a different issue.

 

This Government's own figures (I linked to) that show a decrease in the workforce due largely to the retirement of my generation, a shortfall that won't be solved by current immigration policies.......bringing in more people that will be reliant upon public programs clearly won't reverse this factual pressure......in essence, Trudeau's immigration policies are a politically motivated own-goal that won't help a projected weaker Canadian economy........grandparents and unskilled workers won't address reduced productivity, and will only put more pressure on reduced government revenues. 

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Trudeau's immigration policies are a politically motivated own-goal that won't help a projected weaker Canadian economy.

These are long standing Canadian immigrations policies, not Trudeau's. What you are saying it that Trudeau is not changing the policies and you think he should. Are you aware that about 30% of the economic class immigrants are provincial nominees? That has been consistent for years. The only appreciable difference last year was the increase in refugees, and it remains to be seen if that will carry forward. The approximately 20,000 more refugees last year is less than 7% of the total immigrants, and it remains to see how economically independent they do become.

The last significant change in immigration polices was 30 years ago under Mulroney, all governments including the current one have not made any significant changes. There are some groups calling for significant changes (the increase to 450,000/year) but so far the government has not even indicated it will change.

Edited January 5, 2017 by ?Impact

[Derek 2.0]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

These are long standing Canadian immigrations policies, not Trudeau's. What you are saying it that Trudeau is not changing the policies and you think he should.

 

It doesn't now mater what was done in the past......its the past........what maters is the future, based on this governments numbers, and what will be done in the near present....and that is squarely on this current Government. This government's numbers show a generation of economic decline in terms of growth........what are they going to do to address it?

 

If their plan amounts to your defense of them, "its Harper's fault" and "we've got nothing", we are truly screwed, and by "we" I mean Canadians today in their teens, 20s and 30s.

[Argus]

46 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

These are long standing Canadian immigrations policies, not Trudeau's. What you are saying it that Trudeau is not changing the policies and you think he should.

But he is changing the policies. He's prioritizing immigrants from the middle east and China (which tend to vote Liberal), the two areas of the world which produce the least economically successful immigrants. And he's doing that on top of prioritizing fighting climate change through carbon taxes and prioritizing environmental protection through time-consuming and highly expensive and uncertain bureaucratic obstacles to resource development and delivery. Meanwhile he's raising taxes on the entrepreneur class. All in all it's a recipe for very, very slow growth for years to come.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Argus

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

But he is changing the policies.

All in all it's a recipe for very, very slow growth for years to come.

Yes, he is changing polices. Not however on immigration. There is no prioritization of China/Middle East, that is another dumb Levant rant. Yes a few more offices were opened in China to deal with the immigration applications but that is not a prioritization in any way as we have discussed before.

I have no clue what entrepreneur class means, for that matter what entrepreneur itself means. There was a very marginal increase for very high income earners, yes we know that.

We know you don't like regulation, nothing new there. 

You totally ignore the investments he is making, you are only looking at half the ingredients in the recipe.

[Derek 2.0]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

You totally ignore the investments he is making, you are only looking at half the ingredients in the recipe.

 

Based on their own economic numbers, the other ingredients don't mater when the Trudeau Liberals are making a crap-sandwich of the economy.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, Derek 2.0 said:

Based on their own economic numbers, the other ingredients don't mater when the Trudeau Liberals are making a crap-sandwich of the economy.

I guess we will see when they release the budget in April how they address the situation. Will they increase taxes, will they change immigration policies, will they made different investments, will the cut programs, etc.

 

[Derek 2.0]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I guess we will see when they release the budget in April how they address the situation. Will they increase taxes, will they change immigration policies, will they made different investments, will the cut programs, etc.

 

 

Sure, but their "talks" over healthcare funding with the Provinces should provide a clue as to the corner they will have painted themselves into and how they will act going forward........raising (corporate? Carbon?) taxes, as the Trump administration slashes them clearly won't have the desired effect on economic investment within Canada.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, he is changing polices. Not however on immigration. There is no prioritization of China/Middle East, that is another dumb Levant rant. Yes a few more offices were opened in China to deal with the immigration applications but that is not a prioritization in any way as we have discussed before.

And as I've explained to you, it is visa offices which get the immigration visas, and the Chinese would not come here to Canada to demand more visa offices because they were boo-hooing over wanting more visa offices if more visas didn't come along with them. And already almost a hundred thousand immigrants come from the middle east, what with their 40,000 Syrians last year and the same this year. Besides, Muslims vote Liberal.

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

You totally ignore the investments he is making, you are only looking at half the ingredients in the recipe.

He's not making any investments in jobs. Unless they're government jobs.

[Smallc]

24 minutes ago, Argus said:

And as I've explained to you, it is visa offices which get the immigration visas, and the Chinese would not come here to Canada to demand more visa offices because they were boo-hooing over wanting more visa offices if more visas didn't come along with them.

As has already been told to you, the Chinese need visas to come here as tourists - hence the locating of visa offices in each city with direct access to Canada.  That doesn't mean anyone has given their immigrants preferential treatment.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Smallc said:

As has already been told to you, the Chinese need visas to come here as tourists - hence the locating of visa offices in each city with direct access to Canada.  That doesn't mean anyone has given their immigrants preferential treatment.

You realize that you don't go to the visa office to get your visa, right? As has already been cited in other threads immigration officers rarely ever meet any of the immigrants, tourists or temporary workers who apply for visas. They only get about 4 minutes to process each request, which are mailed in.

[Smallc]

You can mail it in, or go in.  It takes less time to process and Mail with more and closer centres.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 1/5/2017 at 1:41 PM, 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. 

 

I think they are predicting decades of deficits, not decades of Liberal government.