Canada�s government spending is now on unsustainable path, warns PBO | Financial Post
Newsbot @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:14 pm
Title: Canada�s government spending is now on unsustainable path, warns PBO | Financial Post
Category: Economics
Posted By: shockedcanadian
Date: 2016-06-28 16:10:24
Canadian
uwish @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 8:14 pm
of course we are, look who is spending like a drunken sailor? Harper...do you miss him now?
BeaverFever @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:17 pm
You know it's not just spending increases... How come nobody ever mentions the tax cuts??
The doom and gloom of the report is that if we don't make any changes in the next 75 years, then serving the debt will eventually cost 11% of GDP. Now nobody is suggesting we keep the current fiscal policy -or any fiscal policy- for 75 years, but I'm not sure that we're talking about the collapse of society here. Not now, not 75 years from now.
But I notice it says a 1.5% tax increase will make us right as rain so let's do it just so some worriers can sleep at night.
BeaverFever @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:17 pm
.
andyt @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:49 pm
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
But I notice it says a 1.5% tax increase will make us right as rain so let's do it just so some worriers can sleep at night.
Freakinoldguy @ Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:34 pm
This revelation is no surprise given the fact that the common denominator in this and the Ontario debacle is one Gerald Butts, former advisor to Dalton McGuinty, Trudeau's best friend and the champion of deficit spending.
I'm so glad he's at the side of Beloved Photogenic Leader because, if an environmental activist with a BA and MA in English literature isn't the best person to steer the financial helm of this country then who is? 
BeaverFever @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:39 am
Butts is just the political adviser, he not "steering the financial helm" of anything as fiscal policy comes from more places than him. And he's not the only commonality between Ontario liberals and Federal liberals.
Freakinoldguy @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:00 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Butts is just the political adviser, he not "steering the financial helm" of anything as fiscal policy comes from more places than him. And he's not the only commonality between Ontario liberals and Federal liberals.
So what you're saying is that everyone in both the Ontario and Federal Liberal Parties just got up one day and decided with no input from anyone else close to the throne that running huge deficits was the best way to save the economy.
Sorry but I don't buy that. The Liberals before this current iteration weren't spendthrifts and were actually quite fiscally responsible. So, why the sudden change and why does it mirror almost exactly Ontario's rush to the financial brink?
Like I said the only common denominator is one Gerald Butts.
$1:
Butts is okay with running deficits
McGuinty’s government promised to deal with “education deficits” and “health deficits” by continuing fiscal deficits, at least for the first few years of the mandate. Ontario has struggled to reduce its debt ever since, and Moody’s has downgraded the province’s outlook to “negative.”
Butts, however, has continued to promote deficit spending. In a 2014 interview with CTV’s Robert Fife, he called the federal Conservatives’ deficit budgets “relatively austere” and said not spending enough was a “big problem.”
Trudeau later campaigned on running “modest deficits” in order to allow more spending on infrastructure and social programs
.McGuinty’s government promised to deal with “education deficits” and “health deficits” by continuing fiscal deficits, at least for the first few years of the mandate. Ontario has struggled to reduce its debt ever since, and Moody’s has downgraded the province’s outlook to “negative.”
Butts, however, has continued to promote deficit spending. In a 2014 interview with CTV’s Robert Fife, he called the federal Conservatives’ deficit budgets “relatively austere” and said not spending enough was a “big problem.”
Trudeau later campaigned on running “modest deficits” in order to allow more spending on infrastructure and social programs
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/5-things ... -1.2619851
bootlegga @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:48 am
uwish uwish:
of course we are, look who is spending like a drunken sailor? Harper...do you miss him now?
Oh, you the Harper who added almost $150 billion to our national debt while he was in office?
Take off your partisan blinders already - deficit spending is done by both big parties, the only difference is what they spend the money on - the right likes tax cuts and corporate welfare while the left spends it on social programs.
I realize that the GST cut was very popular, but had he kept it at 7%, Harper wouldn't have had to run a deficit most years he was in office - instead he gave up approximately $14 billion/year in tax revenues and created a structural deficit for himself.
BeaverFever @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:19 am
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Butts is just the political adviser, he not "steering the financial helm" of anything as fiscal policy comes from more places than him. And he's not the only commonality between Ontario liberals and Federal liberals.
So what you're saying is that everyone in both the Ontario and Federal Liberal Parties just got up one day and decided with no input from anyone else close to the throne that running huge deficits was the best way to save the economy.
Sorry but I don't buy that. The Liberals before this current iteration weren't spendthrifts and were actually quite fiscally responsible. So, why the sudden change and why does it mirror almost exactly Ontario's rush to the financial brink?
Like I said the only common denominator is one Gerald Butts.
$1:
Butts is okay with running deficits
McGuinty’s government promised to deal with “education deficits” and “health deficits” by continuing fiscal deficits, at least for the first few years of the mandate. Ontario has struggled to reduce its debt ever since, and Moody’s has downgraded the province’s outlook to “negative.”
Butts, however, has continued to promote deficit spending. In a 2014 interview with CTV’s Robert Fife, he called the federal Conservatives’ deficit budgets “relatively austere” and said not spending enough was a “big problem.”
Trudeau later campaigned on running “modest deficits” in order to allow more spending on infrastructure and social programs
.McGuinty’s government promised to deal with “education deficits” and “health deficits” by continuing fiscal deficits, at least for the first few years of the mandate. Ontario has struggled to reduce its debt ever since, and Moody’s has downgraded the province’s outlook to “negative.”
Butts, however, has continued to promote deficit spending. In a 2014 interview with CTV’s Robert Fife, he called the federal Conservatives’ deficit budgets “relatively austere” and said not spending enough was a “big problem.”
Trudeau later campaigned on running “modest deficits” in order to allow more spending on infrastructure and social programs
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/5-things ... -1.2619851
Lots of people are ok with running deficits -it's not a rare idea. Most western government ran deficiets almost the entire 20th century. You can count on one hand the number of years the US government has run a balanced budget. Your god Harper ran deficits almost his entire time in office.
So I don't know where you get the idea that running a deficit must have only come from one man.
The no-deficits-at-any-cost mantra is a failed and disproven economic theory from the 1990s that only the most head-up-the-ass Republican states even bother to follow. You know, those are the governments like Louisiana and Kansas that are on the verge of complete administrative collapse due to sustained lack of funding. Even your fanboi crush Harper couldn't stomach it.
shockedcanadian @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:36 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
uwish uwish:
of course we are, look who is spending like a drunken sailor? Harper...do you miss him now?
Oh, you the Harper who added almost $150 billion to our national debt while he was in office?
Take off your partisan blinders already - deficit spending is done by both big parties, the only difference is what they spend the money on - the right likes tax cuts and corporate welfare while the left spends it on social programs.
I realize that the GST cut was very popular, but had he kept it at 7%, Harper wouldn't have had to run a deficit most years he was in office - instead he gave up approximately $14 billion/year in tax revenues and created a structural deficit for himself.
That $150B is the same amount as Ontario alone added in nearly the same period of time.
OnTheIce @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:20 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
The no-deficits-at-any-cost mantra is a failed and disproven economic theory from the 1990s that only the most head-up-the-ass Republican states even bother to follow. You know, those are the governments like Louisiana and Kansas that are on the verge of complete administrative collapse due to sustained lack of funding. Even your fanboi crush Harper couldn't stomach it.
The money will eventually run out.
So yes, we can borrow and pay back our interest only but when our largest expense as a Nation or Province becomes servicing that debt at current levels, we're in trouble.
We cannot keep spending like this and kicking the can down the street and not expect that one day, this is all going to catch up to us.
BeaverFever @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:00 am
$1:
The money will eventually run out.
Not necessarily.
$1:
So yes, we can borrow and pay back our interest only but when our largest expense as a Nation or Province becomes servicing that debt at current levels, we're in trouble
Not necessarily.
$1:
We cannot keep spending like this and kicking the can down the street and not expect that one day, this is all going to catch up to us.
Not necessarily.
Again - the reports warning is that if we keep this up for the next 75 years then servicing the debt will cost 11% of GDP. Do you know how many governments and how many fiscal policies will come and go in the next 75 years? You might as well be telling a driver on the Trans-Canada near Toronto that if he's not careful, he's going to rear-end a bus in Vancouver.
And anyway, what happens when those reach 11% of GDP? It's 9%-10% currently (federal and Ontario) what's the damage of the extra 1%?
OnTheIce @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:08 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
$1:
The money will eventually run out.
Not necessarily.
We can keep borrowing money, year over year without any long-term consequences?
Freakinoldguy @ Wed Jun 29, 2016 11:12 am
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
The no-deficits-at-any-cost mantra is a failed and disproven economic theory from the 1990s that only the most head-up-the-ass Republican states even bother to follow. You know, those are the governments like Louisiana and Kansas that are on the verge of complete administrative collapse due to sustained lack of funding. Even your fanboi crush Harper couldn't stomach it.
Okay riddle me this. If your theory is correct, explain why Paul Martin and Jean Chretien were hell bent on balancing the budget even when it was detrimental to peoples pension plans, Provincial health care and Canada's economic growth?
BTW for clarifications sake here's a definition of a balanced budget and it sure as hell doesn't sound like anything one Mr. Butts would approve of especially given his penchant for spending other peoples money like a drunken hooker on a coke jag.
$1:
What is a 'Balanced Budget'
A balanced budget is a situation in financial planning or the budgeting process where total revenues are equal to or greater than total expenses. A budget can be considered balanced in hindsight, after a full year's worth of revenues and expenses have been incurred and recorded; a company's operating budget for an upcoming year can also be called balanced based on predictions or estimates.
A balanced budget is a situation in financial planning or the budgeting process where total revenues are equal to or greater than total expenses. A budget can be considered balanced in hindsight, after a full year's worth of revenues and expenses have been incurred and recorded; a company's operating budget for an upcoming year can also be called balanced based on predictions or estimates.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/balanced-budget.asp
So when did Chretien and Martin decide to become Republicans?
Face it Mr. Butts is the driving force behind the spending frenzy just like he was in Ontario and you can deny it, deflect it and try to ignore it all you want but that doesn't make it any less true and for the record, there's a big difference between trying but failing to balance a budget and not even bothering with a budget just so you can spend money you don't have even knowing that your debt will come due at some point.
Just ask Greece how well that theory worked.