04.21.2015 04:01 PM

Pithy (and potty) reaction to the budget

14 Comments

  1. James Smith says:

    so many jokes, so little time…

  2. Ridiculosity says:

    1. I fail to see where the “budget” aspect of this new budget falls.

    2. “Balanced”? If there was ever a better example of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, I haven’t seen it. Until now.

  3. doris says:

    Jim Stanford (economist for Unifor) says – “There is a $1.4 billion reported surplus. But that’s only because the government diverted $2 billion out of its normal $3 billion contingency reserve (apparently things are so stable in the world economy these days there’s no need anymore for so much symbolic “protection”). They siphoned $2.1 billion from the GM shares. And then perhaps most offensively of all, they raided $3.4 billion from the annual operating surplus of the EI system. ”

    If that is the case just how will the next government balance the budget when they start $6.1Billion in the hole for next year? Perhaps it will look good on Harper if he squeaks back when he tries to explain next years economic statements!

    • cgh says:

      You’re being silly. They expensed the GM shares when the government acquired them. That added to the deficit in that year. So what are you suggesting: that they NOT return the money to the same place from which they took it? You and Stanford would prefer that it be shoved into into somebody’s pocket? Yes, they won’t have those shares to sell again next year. That’s next year’s problem. Stanford can squeal all he likes about government fiscal policy, but I’m certainly not going to accept the views of a union flack whose union has contributed so greatly to the decline of auto manufacturing in Ontario.

      Yes, the government may have explaining to do next year to keep in surplus. But you have some explaining to do as to why you think deficits are such a good thing.

      • Chris says:

        Shouldn’t the shares have been used to pay down the debt then?

      • doconnor says:

        Deficits are a good thing because they can be invested in areas that proved a greater return in future, like virtually all businesses do.

        Deficits are a good thing because they reduce the suffering and high long term costs of joblessness and poverty.

        Deficits are a good thing because they produce the economic growth that is a prerequisite for business to invest.

        Deficits are a good thing because interest rates are extremely low and could be lower if the government chose to borrow from the Bank of Canada.

        PS

        Here is a report showing that decades of Neo-liberalism and reducing in union power has failed to procedure the economic growth, productivity improvements or a better life anyone but the 1% that the proponents claimed.

      • cgh says:

        Chris, there’s no such thing as paying down debt until the deficit has been eliminated. So if you want the GM shares to go into debt repayment, what additional $2.1 billion would you like cut from federal program spending?

        Doc, those are all trumped; deficits are a bad thing because they reduce fiscal capacity. Just how big a debt load do you wish to transfer to future generations? And if now is not the time to return to balanced budgets, when is?

        Doris, I have no idea what you’re thinking. Not much of substance from your comments, evidently. So tell us, was the sale of GM shares a good thing or not.

        • doconnor says:

          You can return to balanced budgets when full employment is achieved.

          Unemployment is bad because it reduces fiscal capacity.

          • cgh says:

            Define full employment. If you mean zero, it’s unattainable. You also need to explain the value of huge expense for diminishing return. You also need to deal with the inability to find workers for lots of existing jobs in Canada, which is one of the key reasons why migrant workers play a large role in some economic sectors.

        • doconnor says:

          “Just how big a debt load do you wish to transfer to future generations?”

          “we should leave that to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s granddaughter to solve.” – Joe Oliver

          Of course interest on government debt compounds more slowly the GDP while investment income compounds faster.

        • doris says:

          “Doris, I have no idea what you’re thinking. Not much of substance from your comments, evidently. So tell us, was the sale of GM shares a good thing or not.”

          The sale of the GM shares, this year was a bloody disaster. First of all they lost money on the transaction, secondly it sent the message that they are not interested in the auto sector a wrong message to send to the people trying to get another car into Oshawa when the next line finishes. Can you imagine the job loss when the last line in Oshawa closes? Devastation and definitely a Con seat lost. Also confirms the message to the automakers do not invest in Canada – just go straight to Mexico.

  4. Doris says:

    “Yes, the government may have explaining to do next year to keep in surplus.” my point exactly

    “But you have some explaining to do as to why you think deficits are such a good thing.” WTF please tell me what I am thinking now you mind reader I said nothing about the approval of deficits, but you need to make things up to keep slagging the obvious – con troll. Must have hit a nerve when pointing out the obvious!!

  5. doconnor says:

    I don’t mean 0%. Where full employment would be can be vigorously debated it is probably around 3%-5%. It certainly hasn’t been achieved at this time.

    • cgh says:

      Good dodge. Avoided the point about diminishing return, didn’t you? Also you avoided addressing jobs going vacant. Full employment is about 4%, with the remainder being structural, primarily because of transition.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*