 Canada's deficit to balloon to $55.9 B: Flaherty OTTAWA � Finance Minister Jim Flaherty revealed Thursday that Canada's budget shortfall will swell to a record $55.9 billion this year, but pledged that the Harper government will trim the deficit to a manageable size within the next five years.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
No no no no no no no no. Stimulus is stupid. It's just plain bad economics. Keynesianism completely becomes irrelevant in the long-term.
I don't like the stimulus either but that's what the whole coalition threat was about.. or was it just the the Libs didn't want to lose their party welfare?
The stimulus is part of it. Basically the stimulus package is like using a credit card. Papa didn't want to use the credit card for purchases, but mama and the kids wanted pizza for dinner. They kicked and screamed until papa gave in.
It's stupid, all of it.
When are these numbers going to align with something more concrete? This is a blow to government credibilty, not Flaherty. The numbers have to be grounded at some point in reality and he can't keep throw up his hands every time and say the dog ate his homework.
When are people, like yourself and some Liberals who know better, going to realise that all these are are projections as it's very difficult to forecast during a
Global recession?
During consistent great economic times, the Liberals were frequently off in their projections only to "find" more money in the coffers, so why is an inaccurate now worthy of criticism when it's been happening for decades?
Is it only worthy of criticism when the projection takes us further into the red?
Surpluses don't kill your credit rating.
Your children don't suffer from your surpluses.
Surpluses don't kill your credit rating.
Your children don't suffer from your surpluses.
And yet, masked in the surpluses was billions more added to our National debt.
Surpluses don't kill your credit rating.
Beyond the rhetoric, how do you suppose we're should've handled the economic crisis?
Not follow our G-20 counterparts and hold on for the ride?
Surpluses don't kill your credit rating.
Your children don't suffer from your surpluses.
And yet, masked in the surpluses was billions more added to our National debt.
That's because, when you spend your surpluses irresponsibily, the debt doesn't go away.
Surpluses don't kill your credit rating.
Beyond the rhetoric, how do you suppose we're should've handled the economic crisis?
Not follow our G-20 counterparts and hold on for the ride?
Fair questions. The problem isn't political, it is how the credit rating is effected by Standard and Poor's and other similar rating agencies. They could care less if the surplus is off all they care is that the debt payment is made on time and that the books are balanced. To them a surplus is gravy the fact that there is one is more important than to how accurate it is. However, with it being a deficit they then need to know exactly how much is short and how long it will be. When that forecast is off by a large margin that has a much greater effect on how they assign the credit rate which effects how much can be borrowed and at what level of interest. That costs us money and it prolongs the recovery.
As for how it should be handled, well unless people were living in caves they know the world economy as of September was within a few days of collapsing outright. So it is to be expected that forecasts were to be radically adjusted so why not post the WORST CASE numbers as the budget and when we do better that just makes our books that much better to index. As we are doing it now we have made our projections based on dubious info and went with middle of the road numbers pulled out of our ass so we knew the real numbers were not going to line up when the reports came in. That only makes us look bad to Bay Street not to the voters and that's the issue here.
As for how it should be handled, well unless people were living in caves they know the world economy as of September was within a few days of collapsing outright. So it is to be expected that forecasts were to be radically adjusted so why not post the WORST CASE numbers as the budget and when we do better that just makes our books that much better to index. As we are doing it now we have made our projections based on dubious info and went with middle of the road numbers pulled out of our ass so we knew the real numbers were not going to line up when the reports came in. That only makes us look bad to Bay Street not to the voters and that's the issue here.
I think, regardless of how Harper's laid it out, whether he produced a worst case scenario or doing what he is now, the opposition would be all over him for him for being inaccurate.