Trudeau deficit plan will sink Canadians
Lemmy @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:31 am
Here's a better graph:
Yes, Chretien left office with slightly higher national debt than when he arrived. Debt did fall under Martin, slightly. Debt under Trudeau, Mulroney and Harper rose dramatically.
So who's done the best job? Hard to say.
Under Trudeau's watch, debt was relatively low and stable until the end of his time in office. Given the oil crisis and other troubling economic considerations during Trudeau's time, he likely has the best debt record of the 4 regimes.
Mulroney started his time in office under poor economic conditions, but things improved under his watch, so the last half of his time in office is a disappointment. Some of that is mitigated by the adjustment necessitated by the introduction of the FTA (and later, NAFTA).
Given how strong the economy was, in general, under Chretien/Martin, it's a failure that they weren't able to reduce debt.
Harper's numbers look the worst of all, but just like with Trudeau's time and Mulroney's first years, those numbers are mitigated by the global conditions. He was off to a good start until the mortgage crisis socked him in the face.
I'm so sick of reading you people argue that your team's done better than the other. You're both wrong. When you consider the global economic conditions during their times in power, both parties have about the same record on national debt. In my professional opinion, Chretien and Martin failed the worst because they were the only regime of the four who governed during an economic climate whereby inroads into the nation's debt COULD have been made. Instead they chose to piss away the opportunity to be the heroes Liberal supporters claim them to be.
Winnipegger @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:48 am
That's the one that inspired my graph. Notice the debt for 2012-13 is over 1,000 and it's labelled in ($-billion). That means the debt is over a trillion. Federal debt is not that large; the only way you get those numbers is if you include provincial and territorial debts.
Lemmy Lemmy:
I'm so sick of reading you people argue that your team's done better than the other. ... Chretien and Martin failed the worst because they were the only regime of the four who governed during an economic climate whereby inroads into the nation's debt COULD have been made. Instead they chose to piss away the opportunity to be the heroes Liberal supporters claim them to be.
I wouldn't put it that harsh, but yea. Considering we're in an election, which party is most likely to do that now?
smorgdonkey @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:50 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
I'm so sick of reading you people argue that your team's done better than the other. You're both wrong. When you consider the global economic conditions during their times in power, both parties have about the same record on national debt. In my professional opinion, Chretien and Martin failed the worst because they were the only regime of the four who governed during an economic climate whereby inroads into the nation's debt COULD have been made. Instead they chose to piss away the opportunity to be the heroes Liberal supporters claim them to be.
I am not saying that "my team" has done anything. I don't have a team. My team is the team that does the best job - politics is the only realm where bandwagon jumping is acceptable.
I am saying that Harper has done the worst. I have read the points that you made and I do agree somewhat but when oil was selling for $140 per barrel (and SO much time that it was over $100), BOATLOADS of money should have been put away and invested in alternative sources. The Conservatives are too 'business oriented' and short-sighted to do that. I can't even give Harper one silver star or a single happy face sticker on his report card. He has been truly abysmal.
Oh well...he sends people with kids money every month...even if they make $300 G per year. Money well spent (FFS).
Lemmy @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:53 am
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
I wouldn't put it that harsh, but yea. Considering we're in an election, which party is most likely to do that now?
The answer is neither. Each party will do exactly as each has always done: spend a little to stay in office when times are good and spend like crazy when the economy goes in the shitter. Spend, spend, spend.
OnTheIce @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:01 pm
smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
The Chretien Liberals never reduced the debt. That's a myth that Liberals try to pass off.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Our National debt was higher when they left office than before they came into office. That's factual.
Not factual at all.
Cretien was done in 2003.
Thank you for proving my point.
Canadian Federal Debt (Not National debt)
From YOUR chart:
94-95 - 527.9 Billion
02-03 - 559.6 billion
Jean Chretien added 31.7 billion to the Federal debt during his tenure according to your chart...and that's if you remove the 92-93 budget. If you actually include 92-93, his record would be far worse.
Winnipegger @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:17 pm
Since we're in agreement about spending, could you help me? I would like to know where the money goes. If you look at the 2005 budget, it had spending budget for the upcoming year and several years farther.
Fiscal years 2005-06 thru 2009-10 ($B): 161.3 169.5 177.9 185.8 194.5
If you look at the trend and project, you get:
2010-11 thru 2015-16: 202.79 211.09 219.38 227.67 235.96 244.26
Today's announcement from the "department of finance" (they don't mention Joe Oliver), was that actual spending for 2014-15 was $280.4 billion. If you take the above figure for that year and round to a whole billion, you get $236 billion. That's $44.4 billion more. Where did all the money go? The UUCB cost $2.8 billion/year, the change increased it to $18.0 billion/year effective January 1st. You got it this summer, but it was back-dated. Fiscal year is April 1 ... March 31, so the increase wasn't paid out during that year. I'm sure the lump sum people got this summer is included in this year's budget. So that means only $2.8B of the $44.4B is UUCB. Where did the rest go?
Winnipegger @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:54 pm
OnTheIce:
Federal debt published in budgets for the end of fiscal year 1-April-1993...31-March-1994: $487.524 billion
End of fiscal year '96-97: $562.881 B
End of fiscal year '02-03: $505.325 B
End of fiscal year '05-06: $481.499 B
Website debtclock.ca is run by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. That site allows you to enter a date, it'll tell you the debt on that exact day. Not sure how accurate it is. According to that site, on election day 25-October-1993 the debt was $458.75 billion. On election day 23-January-2006 the debt was $492.25 billion.
So Finance Minister Paul Martin turned around the massive deficit into a balanced budget by budget day 1997. He then paid down the debt. But he didn't pay it down to what it was on election day 1993. By election day 2006, Prime Minister Paul Martin and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale paid down the debt further. I would give them credit for at least debt reduction to the end of that fiscal year.
Jim Flaherty's first budget was May 2006. That budget stated the "status quo surplus" for '05-06 was $17.4 billion. And stated their intent to increase spending to reduce the surplus for that year to $8.0 billion. If they had left the "status quo surplus", then the debt for fiscal year '05-06 would have ended $9.6 billion lower. But the November 2005 fiscal updated promised a 0.5% cut to personal income tax effective 1-January-2006, and new spending programs. So who knows?
Bottom line is Chrétien-Martin did turn around the deficit into surplus, then paid down the debt. The first time any Canadian federal government did that since the 1930s. And they almost paid off the debt incurred during their first 3 years and a few months in government. But they didn't quite pay it all off.
OnTheIce @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:00 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Since we're in agreement about spending, could you help me? I would like to know where the money goes. If you look at the 2005 budget, it had spending budget for the upcoming year and several years farther.
Fiscal years 2005-06 thru 2009-10 ($B): 161.3 169.5 177.9 185.8 194.5
If you look at the trend and project, you get:
2010-11 thru 2015-16: 202.79 211.09 219.38 227.67 235.96 244.26
Today's announcement from the "department of finance" (they don't mention Joe Oliver), was that actual spending for 2014-15 was $280.4 billion. If you take the above figure for that year and round to a whole billion, you get $236 billion. That's $44.4 billion more. Where did all the money go? The UUCB cost $2.8 billion/year, the change increased it to $18.0 billion/year effective January 1st. You got it this summer, but it was back-dated. Fiscal year is April 1 ... March 31, so the increase wasn't paid out during that year. I'm sure the lump sum people got this summer is included in this year's budget. So that means only $2.8B of the $44.4B is UUCB. Where did the rest go?
Fiscal years 2005-06 thru 2009-10 ($B): 161.3 169.5 177.9 185.8 194.5
If you look at the trend and project, you get:
2010-11 thru 2015-16: 202.79 211.09 219.38 227.67 235.96 244.26
Today's announcement from the "department of finance" (they don't mention Joe Oliver), was that actual spending for 2014-15 was $280.4 billion. If you take the above figure for that year and round to a whole billion, you get $236 billion. That's $44.4 billion more. Where did all the money go? The UUCB cost $2.8 billion/year, the change increased it to $18.0 billion/year effective January 1st. You got it this summer, but it was back-dated. Fiscal year is April 1 ... March 31, so the increase wasn't paid out during that year. I'm sure the lump sum people got this summer is included in this year's budget. So that means only $2.8B of the $44.4B is UUCB. Where did the rest go?
Health care spending & larger government would be a big portion. Also include increases in government worker salaries & benefits.
OnTheIce @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:10 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
OnTheIce:
Federal debt published in budgets for the end of fiscal year 1-April-1993...31-March-1994: $487.524 billion
End of fiscal year '96-97: $562.881 B
End of fiscal year '02-03: $505.325 B
End of fiscal year '05-06: $481.499 B
Website debtclock.ca is run by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. That site allows you to enter a date, it'll tell you the debt on that exact day. Not sure how accurate it is. According to that site, on election day 25-October-1993 the debt was $458.75 billion. On election day 23-January-2006 the debt was $492.25 billion.
So Finance Minister Paul Martin turned around the massive deficit into a balanced budget by budget day 1997. He then paid down the debt. But he didn't pay it down to what it was on election day 1993. By election day 2006, Prime Minister Paul Martin and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale paid down the debt further. I would give them credit for at least debt reduction to the end of that fiscal year.
Federal debt published in budgets for the end of fiscal year 1-April-1993...31-March-1994: $487.524 billion
End of fiscal year '96-97: $562.881 B
End of fiscal year '02-03: $505.325 B
End of fiscal year '05-06: $481.499 B
Website debtclock.ca is run by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. That site allows you to enter a date, it'll tell you the debt on that exact day. Not sure how accurate it is. According to that site, on election day 25-October-1993 the debt was $458.75 billion. On election day 23-January-2006 the debt was $492.25 billion.
So Finance Minister Paul Martin turned around the massive deficit into a balanced budget by budget day 1997. He then paid down the debt. But he didn't pay it down to what it was on election day 1993. By election day 2006, Prime Minister Paul Martin and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale paid down the debt further. I would give them credit for at least debt reduction to the end of that fiscal year.
Ok, so you've posted numbers confirming what I said previously. The same comment you said I was trying to "spin".
Jean Chretien left Canada with more debt than when he started whether you use your numbers or the chart above.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Jim Flaherty's first budget was May 2006. That budget stated the "status quo surplus" for '05-06 was $17.4 billion. And stated their intent to increase spending to reduce the surplus for that year to $8.0 billion. If they had left the "status quo surplus", then the debt for fiscal year '05-06 would have ended $9.6 billion lower. But the November 2005 fiscal updated promised a 0.5% cut to personal income tax effective 1-January-2006, and new spending programs. So who knows?
Using the site you provided...
May 1, 2006 - $493 million
September 1, 2008 - $463 million
April 1, 2009 - $457 million
Using the site you referred to, Harper paid down 36 billion before the crash.
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
Bottom line is Chrétien-Martin did turn around the deficit into surplus, then paid down the debt. The first time any Canadian federal government did that since the 1930s. And they almost paid off the debt incurred during their first 3 years and a few months in government. But they didn't quite pay it all off.
Harper has paid down debt, racked up the debt and now is back in a surplus and able to pay down more debt.
I guess Harper will be the 2nd to have done this?
Winnipegger @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:48 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
I guess Harper will be the 2nd to have done this?
True. But he went into deficit before the US financial-meltdown. He increased spending starting the first month he was elected, shrunk the surplus. Canada went into deficit in 2008-09, months before the meltdown.
But as Lemmy pointed out, Chrétien-Martin (I'm lumping them together) should have paid down the debt much more. I would argue that once the large surplus of 2000-01 was achieved, they should have abolished the federal individual surtax and restore funding to healthcare (they did), but no further spending increases until the debt was paid down to what it was on election day 1993.
So how long before the debt is reduced to what it was at the end of fiscal year 2007-08? In other words, pay of debt incurred by Harper's Conservatives? According to the budget the debt was $457.637 billion. That means they just barely paid the debt down to what it was on election day 1993. How much longer before we get back there?
OnTheIce @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:21 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
I guess Harper will be the 2nd to have done this?
True. But he went into deficit before the US financial-meltdown. He increased spending starting the first month he was elected, shrunk the surplus. Canada went into deficit in 2008-09, months before the meltdown.
But as Lemmy pointed out, Chrétien-Martin (I'm lumping them together) should have paid down the debt much more. I would argue that once the large surplus of 2000-01 was achieved, they should have abolished the federal individual surtax and restore funding to healthcare (they did), but no further spending increases until the debt was paid down to what it was on election day 1993.
So how long before the debt is reduced to what it was at the end of fiscal year 2007-08? In other words, pay of debt incurred by Harper's Conservatives? According to the budget the debt was $457.637 billion. That means they just barely paid the debt down to what it was on election day 1993. How much longer before we get back there?
There are things with the tax policy of both Harper and Chretien that they could have done better. However, comparing PM to PM from a different era isn't really an apples to apples comparison because so many things are different.
Will we get back to paying down the debt to pre-Harper times? I don't think so. Especially not under Trudeau or Mulcair.
Lemmy @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:53 pm
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
So how long before the debt is reduced to what it was at the end of fiscal year 2007-08? In other words, pay of debt incurred by Harper's Conservatives? According to the budget the debt was $457.637 billion. That means they just barely paid the debt down to what it was on election day 1993. How much longer before we get back there?
Long question with a short answer: when the baby-boomers die off. 'Til then we're fairly fucked in terms of balanced budgets, no matter the party in power.
romanP @ Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:45 pm
this thread would be more useful if it were about how many ways a hair can be split.
bootlegga @ Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:45 pm
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
But let's turn this around for a second - you are attacking the Liberals for proposing to do a quarter of what Harper did (going into debt $40 billion where Harper went $172 billion in the hole) - why is that?
Seems kind of hypocritical if you ask me...
Seems kind of hypocritical if you ask me...
Not hypocritical at all.
Comparing the crash of 2008 to today is absolute nonsense. Not even comparable. There is no reason to go into debt.
Second, Harper tripled the amount spent on national infrastructure during his tenure. Now JT wants to double that. It's nonsense.
As I've said several times in this thread, I don't really care about the $120 billion or so he racked up while the economy was in the shitter.
What about the $50 or so billion he's added since we emerged from the recession?
Hell, this 'surplus' was only because he refused to let several departments spent $9 billion allotted to them. If you add in his real budget, he still runs a $7.5 billion deficit last year. And let's be honest, with the navy paying the Chileans to support our ships at sea, the military NEEDED that money - it wasn't 'extra' funding that could be cut back.
He had at three years of solid economic numbers (low unemployment, GDP growth, job creation, housing starts, you name it) until oil tanked this year and he still COULDN'T balance the budget in any one of those years. And press releases, speeches, and announcements by his government trumpeted to anyone who would listen how strong our economy was and how quickly we emerged from recession.
So he's either a liar or a leader who can't budget his way out of a wet paper bag - which is it?
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
You just admitted we were in a recession for six months and we won't actually know until after the election which way the economy is going, now will we? And out here in the West, it's definitely a recession...but I know almost nobody in central Canada cares about us, no do they?
If you've bothered to read any articles beyond what happened in the first month, you'd know that the recession is over.
You're trying to use the word "recession" to drive fear.
No, I'm using recession because the media, a number of experts and even YOURSELF have called it one.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Past infrastructure projects like the CPR and Trans-Canada Highway have done far more to stimulate economic growth than you want to admit, but facts are facts.
Too much of either side of the political spectrum is terrible, which is why we need a middle of the road approach, not austerity.
Whether you like it or not, Harper's spending during the recession cushioned the blow for lots of people across Canada and needs to happen again if we are in a recession.
Too much of either side of the political spectrum is terrible, which is why we need a middle of the road approach, not austerity.
Whether you like it or not, Harper's spending during the recession cushioned the blow for lots of people across Canada and needs to happen again if we are in a recession.
Austerity doesn't include tripling the National infrastructure budget. Keeping government spending in control doesn't equate to "austerity".
It IS austerity if you promise departments money than yank it back before they can spend it on things they urgently need.
OnTheIce OnTheIce:
The recession is over. Justin jumped the gun and now looks like the fool we know him to be.
Yeah, he's Just Not Ready, right?
martin14 @ Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:28 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
So how long before the debt is reduced to what it was at the end of fiscal year 2007-08? In other words, pay of debt incurred by Harper's Conservatives? According to the budget the debt was $457.637 billion. That means they just barely paid the debt down to what it was on election day 1993. How much longer before we get back there?
Long question with a short answer: when the baby-boomers die off. 'Til then we're fairly fucked in terms of balanced budgets, no matter the party in power.
Nahh, by the time that happens, they will have found something else to spend the money on.