Liberal Spending out of control

[Argus]

Liberal spending is $7 billion over budget and no one knows why. Or if they do, they're not talking. This is before any of the Liberal spending promises have been factored in. Canada is headed for a $30 billion budget deficit in the midst of an economy boom with revenues higher than expected.

Just think of what happens to that when we hit the inevitable downturn. The Tories went from a balanced budget to a $61b deficit in a little over a year. With the way the Liberals are mishandling the budget we could see our first ever $100 billion deficit once a recession hits.

Whatever may be behind the government’s inability to keep operating expenses within the budget’s already generous allowance, it has little to do with any sudden or unforeseen change in pension obligations. Indeed, it was already being picked up in reports by the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer as early as April (direct program expenses: $154.1-billion), in June ($157.2-billion) and again in November ($159.1-billion). So spending was already $7-billion over budget, even before the update. And no one outside Finance, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer himself, who I spoke to, seems to know why.

Not that spending was much under control before. If the deficit is now headed for $27-billion, compared with the roughly $5-billion surplus the Harper government’s last budget projected for this year, it has nothing to do with any shortfall in revenues: At $340-billion, they are actually somewhat higher than the Harper budget expected. Neither is it because of increases in transfers to the provinces for health care or equalization or in the costs of statutory programs such as elderly benefits or employment insurance, all of which remain at or below Harper-projected levels.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-no-an-accounting-change-didnt-blow-up-the-deficit/

[Queenmandy85]

Nobody can get elected without promising to cut taxes and improve services. The electorate wants more services but they don't want to pay for it. I heard a fellow on the radio some time ago who said the problem is taxes are too high and they don't fix the roads.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[cannuck]

I still can't understand how people could allow ANY deficit spending at all.   Just allows politicians to cash in during their term and pass the bill onto someone else's grandchildren.

[Shady]

It’s time for a balanced budget amendment.  

[Queenmandy85]

18 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I still can't understand how people could allow ANY deficit spending at all.   Just allows politicians to cash in during their term and pass the bill onto someone else's grandchildren.

How do you expect the government to pay for all the services and infrastructure we demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

[Argus]

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you expect the government to pay for all the services and infrastructure we demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

People have learned to live within their means in their personal lives (most of them). I do not have the giant mansion with the servants I wish I had because I can't afford them. People have to realize they can't afford everything they want.

The problem is, I think, that many of them don't pay for it. And that many more think "Well, it's okay. Someone else will pay. Some rich bastard."

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you expect the government to pay for all the services and infrastructure we demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

I certainly expect the government to raise taxes when it needs to. But silly me I also expect the government to resist the efforts of rich influential bastards who can't do without their mansions and servants to interfer in that process.

[G-MAN]

It makes me nervous knowing that O.A.S. Is something that is vulnerable in future governments that are stuck with this massive growing debt. Being a Gen X’er without an indexed pension, kinda hoping its there for me.

[scribblet]

When Paul Martin was liberal finance minister he proposed the new seniors benefit which was pretty bad, so much so he had to back off.  It's not too hard to believe that they might try something like that again in order to pay for their prolific overspending. 

[Argus]

18 hours ago, scribblet said:

When Paul Martin was liberal finance minister he proposed the new seniors benefit which was pretty bad, so much so he had to back off.  It's not too hard to believe that they might try something like that again in order to pay for their prolific overspending. 

The longer they wait to balance the budget, the greater the debt, and the more vulnerable we will be to a future downturn. Harper tried to push back on pensions as many other responsible nations have, so that people couldn't collect till 67. Trudeau reversed that for crass political purposes.

The situation as it presently stands where people can work for 30 years and then collect full pensions for 30-40 more is not likely sustainable.

[Shady]

On 1/1/2020 at 2:33 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you expect the government to pay for all the services and infrastructure we demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

Do the billions spent on refugees qualify as government services or infrastructure? 

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Shady said:

Do the billions spent on refugees qualify as government services or infrastructure? 

That's not a line item so it doesn't count at all. For example, the 20,000 elderly immigrants we're now getting each year (the Liberals quadrupled the number) represent a yearly health care cost of $6 billion. But that item won't appear on any budget. Likewise the costs of the tens of thousands, make that hundreds of thousands of refugees are scattered across various health, education and social welfare budgets of the provinces.

[Army Guy]

On 1/1/2020 at 3:06 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

Nobody can get elected without promising to cut taxes and improve services. The electorate wants more services but they don't want to pay for it. I heard a fellow on the radio some time ago who said the problem is taxes are too high and they don't fix the roads.

I think that is a basic Canadian right of passage now,  they don't care whom or what party they are voting for , their vote is swayed by what is in it for them...

and screw the costs they are being referred to some other generation to pay anyways .. maybe it should be law that there is no more government deficits, unless a special circumstance, such as war, famine, etc.... want to make all these campaign promises then they must be costed out, by that I mean this is what it is going to cost each tax payer...all of this before tax payers go to the polls...atleast until we can get our debt under control....atleast then the tax payers will have some say in what is funded and what is a waste...

And if the debt does not matter maybe we should go nuts and improve our quality of life, better health care system and its management, better, better climate change plan, with a reasonable expectation along the resources to get there etc etc …. sink money where it is needed the most not what is the most popular....   

Edited January 2, 2020 by Army Guy

[Queenmandy85]

To quote the Right Honourable John Crosbie, " If we told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't have voted for us."

[cannuck]

On 1/1/2020 at 1:33 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

How do you expect the government to pay for all the services and infrastructure we demand without raising taxes to pay for it?

I think you missed my point.  When they spend it, if budget is balanced and debt is not allowed, taxes are raised IMMEDIATELY to match their spending.  can't pass the bill on to someone else (which is what deficit spending does).

[Guest ProudConservative]

If you're crying over Justin Trudeau's spending, it will be nothing in compared to the war with Iran. Trump is so wasteful with Tax dollars, that Justin Trudeau could teach him a lesson in finance. Most of the economy in the us, is based on borrowed money.

Edited January 6, 2020 by ProudConservative

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, cannuck said:

I think you missed my point.  When they spend it, if budget is balanced and debt is not allowed, taxes are raised IMMEDIATELY to match their spending.  can't pass the bill on to someone else (which is what deficit spending does).

Sometimes a deficit is required, such as when the economy requires stimulation. Raising taxes and / or reducing spending can make a recession worse. It is the voters who are in the driver's seat. If they want low taxes and big spending, the government is obliged to comply. "Democracy is the philosophy the people should get the government they want...good and hard." H.L. Menken.

[scribblet]

49 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sometimes a deficit is required, such as when the economy requires stimulation. Raising taxes and / or reducing spending can make a recession worse. It is the voters who are in the driver's seat. If they want low taxes and big spending, the government is obliged to comply. "Democracy is the philosophy the people should get the government they want...good and hard." H.L. Menken.

Since when are voters in the driver's seat, I would say most people don't was as large a deficit as we have but Trudeau doesn't care.     IMO most people don't mind a small deficit, but ours is now out of control. 

[cannuck]

56 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Sometimes a deficit is required, such as when the economy requires stimulation. Raising taxes and / or reducing spending can make a recession worse. It is the voters who are in the driver's seat. If they want low taxes and big spending, the government is obliged to comply. "Democracy is the philosophy the people should get the government they want...good and hard." H.L. Menken.

Government should have no business at all in "stimulating" economy, beyond timely shuffling scheduling of infrastructure construction during slow times.  Letting government pick economic winners and losers is exactly how the mechanism of corruption is elevated into government.  Its role should be and ONLY be to provide a level playing field by legislation, regulation and enforcement - NOTthrough dispensing of privilege.

I think you are missing the point: governments in most of the world have been running massive deficits in good times and bad.   Recessions and depressions happen when inflationary speculative bubbles burst - and the simple solution is to prevent inflationary speculative bubbles (simply tax speculative gain - so money ends up in the real economy, not in Casino Capitalist financial games).  No bubble, no burst, no recession.  The "too big to fail" bailout of speculators in the US cost the taxpayers more than every war and every President in the accumulated history of the country.  That was all avoided by post 1929 legislation and regulation, all of which was appealed in the post war years (ending with the last big one under Clinton).  And, before you go there:  many savvy economists and historians greatly debate that the "New Deal" is what pulled the US out of the Great Depression - WWII did.   The Depression was caused by the limits (actually LACK of any at all) to credit as a result of the bursting of the '20s speculative bubble.

When you screw up, the solution to fixing the problem is not screwing up more.   Deficit spending is not sustainable nor excuseable.

Edited January 6, 2020 by cannuck

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

When you screw up, the solution to fixing the problem is not screwing up more.   Deficit spending is not sustainable nor excuseable.

All it has to do is get you through the next election. That is why I don't have absolute faith in democracy.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, cannuck said:

Government should have no business at all in "stimulating" economy, beyond timely shuffling scheduling of infrastructure construction during slow times.  Letting government pick economic winners and losers is exactly how the mechanism of corruption is elevated into government.  Its role should be and ONLY be to provide a level playing field by legislation, regulation and enforcement - NOTthrough dispensing of privilege.

I think you are missing the point: governments in most of the world have been running massive deficits in good times and bad.   Recessions and depressions happen when inflationary speculative bubbles burst - and the simple solution is to prevent inflationary speculative bubbles (simply tax speculative gain - so money ends up in the real economy, not in Casino Capitalist financial games).  No bubble, no burst, no recession.  The "too big to fail" bailout of speculators in the US cost the taxpayers more than every war and every President in the accumulated history of the country.  That was all avoided by post 1929 legislation and regulation, all of which was appealed in the post war years (ending with the last big one under Clinton).  And, before you go there:  many savvy economists and historians greatly debate that the "New Deal" is what pulled the US out of the Great Depression - WWII did.   The Depression was caused by the limits (actually LACK of any at all) to credit as a result of the bursting of the '20s speculative bubble.

When you screw up, the solution to fixing the problem is not screwing up more.   Deficit spending is not sustainable nor excuseable.

On picking winners and losers, I’ve come to the conclusion that, apart from collecting its percentage to pay for our safety net, government should get out of the way on a number of fronts, such as on mobile phone coverage and granting pot retail licenses.   Let the competition in and let providers build and provide as much supply as the market will bear.  Our cell phone costs are outrageous and we have as many pot retailers in Ontario as Newfoundland because they’ve created restrictions on the number of licenses instead of just ensuring that retailers meet the regulatory criteria.  

The government protects the Bell and Rogers cell phone duopoly with no benefit to consumers.  Their infrastructure is laid out, they own major sports teams, and are basically collecting high rent from consumers because they’re the only game in town.  Wind and other small operators are renting from Bell/Rogers. The same thing happened when the Ontario government put out bids for the Niagara casino.  Because government decided that only one proposal could be accepted, others had to be rejected, which led to the government “picking” their favourite, which wasn’t even close to the best option for the community.  I say let all interested parties build and consumers will spend where they see fit.  The lousy operations will close naturally.  This is why we have so many mediocre venues: Government steps in to award contracts, which leads to influence peddling, nepotism, and fewer options for consumers.  We’re over-regulated by bureaucracies like the CRTC that create roadblocks to lower prices in the name of protecting Canadian big corporate entities and culture which they attempt to define.  

Edited January 6, 2020 by Zeitgeist

[Army Guy]

On 1/6/2020 at 10:48 AM, scribblet said:

Since when are voters in the driver's seat, I would say most people don't was as large a deficit as we have but Trudeau doesn't care.     IMO most people don't mind a small deficit, but ours is now out of control. 

Perhaps it is time to put them into the driver seat, making it law that there is to be no more deficits without special reasons, ie such as war, natural disasters etc , in order for government to keep their promises taxes will have to go up, how long do you think a government will remain popular if the tax payers  have to pay for all these retarded promises.  

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Perhaps it is time to put them into the driver seat, making it law that there is to be no more deficits without special reasons, ie such as war, natural disasters etc , in order for government to keep their promises taxes will have to go up, how long do you think a government will remain popular if the tax payers  have to pay for all these retarded promises.  

Outlaw in-camera lobbying.  There you go, spending-out-of-control issue fixed. No need for a coup, Constitutional amendments or changing the stupid preamble required.

You're welcome.

Next issue?

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Outlaw in-camera lobbying.  There you go, spending-out-of-control issue fixed. No need for a coup, Constitutional amendments or changing the stupid preamble required.

You're welcome.

Next issue?

I certainly agree with making in-camera or even extra-camera lobbying not only illegal, but criminal.  However, that alone will not fix the spending problems.  Making politicians collect tax for their promises and giveaway while in office, though, will do a lot more.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, cannuck said:

I certainly agree with making in-camera or even extra-camera lobbying not only illegal, but criminal.  However, that alone will not fix the spending problems.  Making politicians collect tax for their promises and giveaway while in office, though, will do a lot more.

It won't fix over or under spending on its own but it should make it a lot easier for us to fix our politicians.