[Alta_redneck]

$1:

If you want to know the downside of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s plan to plunge the federal government back into deficit, check out how much it costs just to pay the interest on the money taxpayers already owe.

You may be surprised to find out Ottawa’s debt-servicing charges are about the same as it spends on Canada’s Old Age Security. It’s also equal to how much the federal government raises every year from the GST.

Yeah, it’s a lot of dough. And that’s with interest rates at historically low levels. Imagine what it will cost taxpayers once rates begin to rķise? And they will, eventually. They can’t stay at this level forever. When they do rise, government will be paying even more just to service the debt they already have. That will mean less money for the provinces for health care, social services and post-secondary education. It will mean fewer resources for national infrastructure programs. And it will make it nearly impossible for the federal government to make payments on the principal of its net debt, which skyrocketed to $688 billion in 2013-14. That’s up from $516 billion in 2008 when government started running deficits again.

All that added debt is on the Harper government, which went too deep and too long into deficit in the wake of the 2008-09 recession. They added $172 billion to the debt during that period. That was after the federal government reduced its overall debt by $93 billion from 1996 to 2007.

It’s difficult to reduce debt. But it’s very easy to put it on, just like body fat.

The upshot is that taxpayers not only have to repay that money one day, they have to pay interest on it. And that’s very expensive. In 2013-14, the feds spent $29.2 billion on debt-servicing costs. To put that into perspective, Ottawa spent $32.3 billion that year on Old Age Security benefits and raised $29.9 billion from the GST.

Had government incurred even half the $172 billion it added since 2008, it would have freed up billions in revenue for health care, infrastructure and social services. Instead, that money went to the bankers and the bond holders. That was a policy choice.

So we need less debt, not more.

Supporters of Trudeau’s deficit plan say all of this is much ado about nothing. The only thing that matters, they say, is that the federal debt as a percentage of the economy – the debt-to-GDP ratio – is historically low and wouldn’t change much if Ottawa added another $30 billion to it. No it wouldn’t. But taxpayers would still have to repay that $30 billion one day and they would have to pay higher interest charges on the increased debt-load. And if interest rates go up next year or in three years, those debt-servicing charges will soar, tying up billions more that would be unavailable for front-line government services.

You really can’t get around that. When governments take on more debt, there’s a very real price to pay.

Citing debt-to-GDP ratios is just an excuse for politicians like Trudeau to justify spending more than they’re taking it. There is no consensus among economists on what level of debt to GDP is acceptable. It’s a policy choice. And if politicians like Trudeau can find an excuse to spend unsustainably by citing the ratio, they will. And they’ll try to sell it as good policy.

It isn’t. It’s irresponsible and it hurts taxpayers in the long run.

And Canadians should stand up and say “enough.”

BY TOM BRODBECK, WINNIPEG SUN

[bootlegga]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

$1:

If you want to know the downside of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s plan to plunge the federal government back into deficit, check out how much it costs just to pay the interest on the money taxpayers already owe.

You may be surprised to find out Ottawa’s debt-servicing charges are about the same as it spends on Canada’s Old Age Security. It’s also equal to how much the federal government raises every year from the GST.

Yeah, it’s a lot of dough. And that’s with interest rates at historically low levels. Imagine what it will cost taxpayers once rates begin to rķise? And they will, eventually. They can’t stay at this level forever. When they do rise, government will be paying even more just to service the debt they already have. That will mean less money for the provinces for health care, social services and post-secondary education. It will mean fewer resources for national infrastructure programs. And it will make it nearly impossible for the federal government to make payments on the principal of its net debt, which skyrocketed to $688 billion in 2013-14. That’s up from $516 billion in 2008 when government started running deficits again.

All that added debt is on the Harper government, which went too deep and too long into deficit in the wake of the 2008-09 recession. They added $172 billion to the debt during that period. That was after the federal government reduced its overall debt by $93 billion from 1996 to 2007.

It’s difficult to reduce debt. But it’s very easy to put it on, just like body fat.

The upshot is that taxpayers not only have to repay that money one day, they have to pay interest on it. And that’s very expensive. In 2013-14, the feds spent $29.2 billion on debt-servicing costs. To put that into perspective, Ottawa spent $32.3 billion that year on Old Age Security benefits and raised $29.9 billion from the GST.

Had government incurred even half the $172 billion it added since 2008, it would have freed up billions in revenue for health care, infrastructure and social services. Instead, that money went to the bankers and the bond holders. That was a policy choice.

So we need less debt, not more.

Supporters of Trudeau’s deficit plan say all of this is much ado about nothing. The only thing that matters, they say, is that the federal debt as a percentage of the economy – the debt-to-GDP ratio – is historically low and wouldn’t change much if Ottawa added another $30 billion to it. No it wouldn’t. But taxpayers would still have to repay that $30 billion one day and they would have to pay higher interest charges on the increased debt-load. And if interest rates go up next year or in three years, those debt-servicing charges will soar, tying up billions more that would be unavailable for front-line government services.

You really can’t get around that. When governments take on more debt, there’s a very real price to pay.

Citing debt-to-GDP ratios is just an excuse for politicians like Trudeau to justify spending more than they’re taking it. There is no consensus among economists on what level of debt to GDP is acceptable. It’s a policy choice. And if politicians like Trudeau can find an excuse to spend unsustainably by citing the ratio, they will. And they’ll try to sell it as good policy.

It isn’t. It’s irresponsible and it hurts taxpayers in the long run.

And Canadians should stand up and say “enough.”

BY TOM BRODBECK, WINNIPEG SUN

The fact that he writes for Sun Media is the real reason behind his opposition, not the fact that the Liberals are merely proposing to do exactly what Harper has done for the past 7 years.

[CountLothian]

Why people listen to these Sun Hacks I will never know.

It's like shock economics 101.

This is what is going down with these people.
Shell game 101.

The sun always supported Harper . At the time of running these huge deficits everyone right wing media supported it.

Now Harper is acting like deficit spending is wrong, it's no good.



So we have the same media dead against deficits because Trudeau is being honest about how they can do us a greater good for long term gain

It's so obvious that they are spinning economics in this article to suit an electoral campaign .

People buy it.

[CountLothian]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The fact that he writes for Sun Media is the real reason behind his opposition, not the fact that the Liberals are merely proposing to do exactly what Harper has done for the past 7 years.

exactly

[martin14]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

$1:

Supporters of Trudeau’s deficit plan say all of this is much ado about nothing. The only thing that matters, they say, is that the federal debt as a percentage of the economy – the debt-to-GDP ratio – is historically low and wouldn’t change much if Ottawa added another $30 billion to it. No it wouldn’t. But taxpayers would still have to repay that $30 billion one day and they would have to pay higher interest charges on the increased debt-load. And if interest rates go up next year or in three years, those debt-servicing charges will soar, tying up billions more that would be unavailable for front-line government services.

You really can’t get around that. When governments take on more debt, there’s a very real price to pay.

Citing debt-to-GDP ratios is just an excuse for politicians like Trudeau to justify spending more than they’re taking it. There is no consensus among economists on what level of debt to GDP is acceptable. It’s a policy choice. And if politicians like Trudeau can find an excuse to spend unsustainably by citing the ratio, they will. And they’ll try to sell it as good policy.

It isn’t. It’s irresponsible and it hurts taxpayers in the long run.

And Canadians should stand up and say “enough.”

BY TOM BRODBECK, WINNIPEG SUN

This is the exact same kind of Greek economic bullshitting the numbers that have all the
Med countries one step away from bankruptcy.

It is also Obongo level crap that has inflated U.S. debt to levels they will never pay it back.

And when interest rates goes up, and they will, next year, things are going to go
down the toilet really fast.

[CountLothian]

martin14 martin14:

This is the exact same kind of Greek economic bullshitting the numbers that have all the
Med countries one step away from bankruptcy.

It is also Obongo level crap that has inflated U.S. debt to levels they will never pay it back.

And when interest rates goes up, and they will, next year, things are going to go
down the toilet really fast.

Thank you.

I don't really know you people or where your stand and can only go by what you post one post at a time.

But you mirror my sentiments exactly except in the raising interest rates.

We can't . We are efed beyond belief from lowering them to the point they are now.

These insanely low rates are mixed with something the government is looking into but is not being said publicly.
Mortgage brokers have been doing illegal financing, across Canada.
Here's how.


here's how the scam works and who is pissed and why.

They take someone who it is impossible to meet the criteria for a mortgage.
Lie about where he works and what he makes, pay an employer to lie over the phone when the bank asks if Daisy makes 60 grand a year as an accountant and then has the home buyer sign falsified documents at the bank when purchasing a mortgage.

As long as the person makes their loan payments it's just a piece of paper lying in file.

but fault on it and you are investigated and you get in trouble because you signed the deed.
the mortgage broker calls foul and did not know about it.

There are probably over a few million of those mortgages at the low end,could be more a lot more,as we speak .

The banks don't mind , because they get to keep the equity in the home along with the home.

But CMHC is screwed because there are people there who also looked the other way.

sounds like sci fi right?

wait and see. The Crap is going to hit the fan after the election for the World Bank knows about it and is watching.

It's one of the reason we sell so many homes and have a high price on them.

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga bootlegga:

The fact that he writes for Sun Media is the real reason behind his opposition, not the fact that the Liberals are merely proposing to do exactly what Harper has done for the past 7 years.

Or perhaps his opposition exists because he's right?

Harper hasn't purposely gone into deficit for the last 7 years because interest rates are low and because he wanted to stimulate the economy, beyond the funding after the Global crisis.

We're seeing the same old double standard here with respect to the Liberal party and it's supporters. They spent the better half of a decade criticizing Harper for going into debt and now, because it's their idea, it's brilliant!

[fifeboy]

martin14 martin14:

It is also Obongo level crap that has inflated U.S. debt to levels they will never pay it back.

Just curious here, as I am aware you need your daily quota of shit slinging, but if a Republican wins the next U.S. election (...if...) and the U.S. public debt goes up, what are you planning to say?

[CountLothian]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Harper hasn't purposely gone into deficit for the last 7 years because interest rates are low and because he wanted to stimulate the economy, beyond the funding after the Global crisis.

Ok lets watch or not watch for he will refuse like he always does when His Illustriousness The Count Lothian calls his bluff.

calls his bluff nya nya nya nya.....

Why exactly did Harper go in into deficit for. and what exactly were those deficit dollars spent on....hmmmmmm

$1:

We're seeing the same old double standard here with respect to the Liberal party and it's supporters. They spent the better half of a decade criticizing Harper for going into debt and now, because it's their idea, it's brilliant!

Lol where did you get the idea for posting this...ROFLMA

[Canadian_Mind]

Does Trudeau intend on raising GST back to 7%? That would raise a significant amount of dough for paying down debt or paying for services over a 4 year tenure.

[Winnipegger]

I wrote a Letter to the Editor. Let's see if it gets published.

[OnTheIce]

CountLothian CountLothian:

Ok lets watch or not watch for he will refuse like he always does when His Illustriousness The Count Lothian calls his bluff.

calls his bluff nya nya nya nya.....

Why exactly did Harper go in into deficit for. and what exactly were those deficit dollars spent on....hmmmmmm

You've never offered up a 'bluff' or anything that I didn't shoot down.

Speaking of deficit, were you in a coma from 2008-2009 and miss the Global economic crisis? The stimulus spending the Liberals said wasn't enough? The Liberals wanted to put us into MORE debt?

I guess you missed that.

Just like your buddy Justin, you're a mental lightweight. (and a liar!)

[Canadian_Mind]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I wrote a Letter to the Editor. Let's see if it gets published.

Which paper?

[Winnipegger]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I wrote a Letter to the Editor. Let's see if it gets published.

Which paper?

Winnipeg Sun. Where the article in the first post came from.

[Canadian_Mind]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

I wrote a Letter to the Editor. Let's see if it gets published.

Which paper?

Winnipeg Sun. Where the article in the first post came from.

Oh right. I'm dumb sometimes.