Analysts on Canada's budget: ‘Deficit paranoia is mind-bogglingly stupid’

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
We don't need to borrow. Just the gimme generation wants it all now. Much like their parents did. Well some of us. Most people I know worked and paid taxes so Ontariowe and Quebeec could have more freebies.

How do you educate a generation? School dosn't seem to be working. I wonder what coild be the problem with learning? Who's suggesting the school lessons? Why the hell does it take a month to book a plumber? But I can get a bussiness major in twenty minutes or a computer mechanic on any corner. All these gimme generations will die if they do not master the power of firewood.

Analysts on Canada's budget: ‘Deficit paranoia is mind-bogglingly stupid’

Awaiting the budget
Canada’s new government is expected this week to unveil a stimulus budget with a deficit in the area of $30-billion.

That would count as bad news for some who crave balance. But for others, it may not be enough given the sluggish economy and unemployment that refuses to drop below 7 per cent.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau has already adjusted the outlook amid the oil shock, projecting a deficit of $18.4-billion in the 2016-17 fiscal year, not including the Liberal government’s promised spending initiative. When you add it all together, it’s looking like about $30-billion.

Besides infrastructure spending, Canadians can expect to see a new child benefit, changes to the jobless benefits program and a tweak to tax rules governing stock options.

Economists aren’t waving red flags over what they expect to see, and some observers would like even greater stimulus spending than Mr. Morneau will probably unveil.

They’re not suggesting throwing caution to the wind, but they do note that Canada is able to handle what’s expected.

Here’s what some observers say:

“Deficit paranoia is mind-bogglingly stupid. … Even a $50-billion deficit wouldn’t endanger the long-term outlook for the public finances, however. The bigger risk is that if fiscal policy doesn’t take up the slack, the economy could slip into a prolonged downturn. It would be a tragedy if, after watching Europe nearly destroy itself, Canada made the same mistake.” Paul Ashworth, Capital Economics

l

Yer obviously not aware of the global economic outlook, hahahaha going forward. What the fuk does "in the hole" mean to you'?? Dig shovel hell any of that ring a bell?
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
67
Tell Trudeau not to let banks seize our deposits to pay off their risky loans!

Justin Trudeau released his budget, and it was bad.




But did you see this shocking paragraph, tucked away on page 223?
INTRODUCING A BANK RECAPITALIZATION “BAIL-IN” REGIME: To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating.


Source: Budget 2016, p. 223






mo

HandsOffMyMoney - The Rebel
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,341
113
Vancouver Island
I agree, they should be bigger.

There will be a ton of industry that needs help as we move out of fossil fuels.

You really gotta study economics. With you and trudOWE in charge we will be worse off than Greece before we can unelect the dumb bastard. Today's deficit is tomorrow's debt. But you freeloaders don't care because your kids will be paying for it. The banksters don't care because they are lending the money.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
You really gotta study economics. With you and trudOWE in charge we will be worse off than Greece before we can unelect the dumb bastard. Today's deficit is tomorrow's debt. But you freeloaders don't care because your kids will be paying for it. The banksters don't care because they are lending the money.

They arn't having kids. So why would they care. You see?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
From a moneypit that received 3/4 of a billion dollars from that budget. But I'm sure that since it is a lefty source it will be balanced.

Abacus did polls prominently for the Toronto Sun so you can just keep your foot in there.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,367
2,953
113
Toronto, ON
Tell Trudeau not to let banks seize our deposits to pay off their risky loans!

Justin Trudeau released his budget, and it was bad.




But did you see this shocking paragraph, tucked away on page 223?
INTRODUCING A BANK RECAPITALIZATION “BAIL-IN” REGIME: To protect Canadian taxpayers in the unlikely event of a large bank failure, the Government is proposing to implement a bail-in regime that would reinforce that bank shareholders and creditors are responsible for the bank’s risks—not taxpayers. This would allow authorities to convert eligible long-term debt of a failing systemically important bank into common shares to recapitalize the bank and allow it to remain open and operating.


Source: Budget 2016, p. 223






mo

HandsOffMyMoney - The Rebel


Are they anticipating a bank failure? Admittedly I haven't seen the next budget yet, but it would need to be a pretty bad one to take down a bank.
 

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
Are they anticipating a bank failure? Admittedly I haven't seen the next budget yet, but it would need to be a pretty bad one to take down a bank.
[/FONT]


If you kill Oil, hundred of billions worth of bank investments would be stranded in infrastructure that wouldn't be making money, ever.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
6,568
4,146
113
Edmonton
Lorne Gunther had a good article in the Sun a few days ago regarding increasing funding to the aboriginals and how Trudeau is reversing the accountability the Conservatives had put in place.


Will the extra funds actually get used for what is required or will the funds simply be "frittered" away as in the past. Without accountability, we'll never know where the money went and find that the water will still be undrinkable, homes still unliveable and a good education not attainable. For the sake of the children and the future of the aboriginals, I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I also strongly think I'm not. Attitudes, not money, will help resolve the situation these communities find themselves in and until someone has the balls to stand up and say the obvious (i.e. someone who is not PC), nothing is going to change.


JMHO