Canadian Politics Today
Federal Politics => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on April 18, 2021, 08:36:29 pm
-
Muck raking goes here.
Early reports of a 400 billion deficit for 2020 fiscal year, 2 billion for national childcare (plus we already give money to parents for childcare).
Be interesting to see what budget is projected for this coming fiscal. My guess is...150-200 billion?
-
Looks like we are on track to double the federal debt in two years. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
-
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/acb6d189-d221-4161-b8c4-b480545772fc
-
(plus we already give money to parents for childcare).
Childcare subsidy is provincial. If you mean CCB, it's not for childcare, it's just a general benefit.
-
g-damn l/Liberal media!
(https://i.imgur.com/wvAsIL5.jpg)
-
say it ain't so! Eric O'Foole purposely parsing Minister Freeland's statement - oh my!
#ContextMatters
I really believe COVID-19 has created a window of political opportunity & maybe an epiphany as you put it, on the importance of early learning & childcare
(https://i.imgur.com/y2nYaq1.png)
-
Why don't we just pay for childcare when there's a global pandemic once every century? If we need it for a year and a half once per century does that mean everyone should get it for free all the time indefinitely? What's the logic in what Freeland is saying? I don't understand the argument, other than "we're spending tons of money on COVID and stimulus and have a good excuse for it so let's just shove national childcare into it so it's easier for voters to swallow given they've already swallowed 400 billion in COVID money already".
Maybe if the feds, provinces, and municipalities would get off their butts and fix the housing crisis people could afford their own childcare.
-
Why don't we just pay for childcare when there's a global pandemic once every century? If we need it for a year and a half once per century does that mean everyone should get it for free all the time indefinitely? What's the logic in what Freeland is saying? I don't understand the argument, other than "we're spending tons of money on COVID and stimulus and have a good excuse for it so let's just shove national childcare into it so it's easier for voters to swallow given they've already swallowed 400 billion in COVID money already".
Maybe if the feds, provinces, and municipalities would get off their butts and fix the housing crisis people could afford their own childcare.
I think they're trying to come up with a standard across the country for childcare. Quebec is really good about the issue because obviously they are concerned about population growth and want to promote it.
BC under the "Liberals" (who are really conservatives) didn't offer much. The NDP has done a decent job but the threshold is pretty low for qualifying.
It kind of makes sense to make it a federal issue and it's not really just about the pandemic. Anything after one kid, daycare starts becoming unreasonably expensive and people either forego another kid or it takes women out of the labour market for a number of years to raise their kids.
I know people inevitably turn it into a 'don't have kids' argument, but without getting too philosophical, it makes sense that it becomes a federal issue under the presumption that people do want kids and women's careers are hindered in doing so.
-
By paying for these programs with deficit spending we are really passing the cost of them on to to the very children being cared for. Some may think that is fair but it is also reality. Because we have no intention of paying off debt, future generations will have the added cost of paying for every generation preceding them.
-
By paying for these programs with deficit spending we are really passing the cost of them on to to the very children being cared for. Some may think that is fair but it is also reality. Because we have no intention of paying off debt, future generations will have the added cost of paying for every generation preceding them.
Nobody is going to pay much of anything off. We'll just be paying the interest and so will they. As long as paying the interest is cheaper than actually paying off the debt there's little incentive to pay off the debt.
-
Nobody is going to pay much of anything off. We'll just be paying the interest and so will they. As long as paying the interest is cheaper than actually paying off the debt there's little incentive to pay off the debt.
Yes except if we just keep borrowing and not paying it off, each generation gets to service all the debt from previous generations on top of their own. Do you think it would be right for you to be servicing debt that paid for your great great grand parent's social programs and every generation in between?
-
Yes except if we just keep borrowing and not paying it off, each generation gets to service all the debt from previous generations on top of their own. Do you think it would be right for you to be servicing debt that paid for your great great grand parent's social programs and every generation in between?
No but all the gov cares about is dept-to-gdp so that's mainly what they'll look at. It's politics. Freebies win elections, Trudeau's approval rating has gone up quite bit since giving out 400 billion. Imagine if they clawed back some freebie, like cut Old Age security or something, people would be cheesed.
The deficit this year Liberals projected at 150 billion, just what I prediction. But I get that, still lots of EI claims etc, and they're going to add more stimulus.
-
No but all the gov cares about is dept-to-gdp so that's mainly what they'll look at. It's politics. Freebies win elections, Trudeau's approval rating has gone up quite bit since giving out 400 billion. Imagine if they clawed back some freebie, like cut Old Age security or something, people would be cheesed.
The deficit this year Liberals projected at 150 billion, just what I prediction. But I get that, still lots of EI claims etc, and they're going to add more stimulus.
The problem is adding freebees when you don't have the money to pay for them and never will so you just keep borrowing to finance them.
As I said before, Debt to GDP nonsense is just about claiming we can depend on infinite growth to justify infinite borrowing. When the growth has a pickup, future generations get screwed.
-
By paying for these programs with deficit spending we are really passing the cost of them on to to the very children being cared for. Some may think that is fair but it is also reality. Because we have no intention of paying off debt, future generations will have the added cost of paying for every generation preceding them.
Well, you know I agree with you about the pandemic spending and the frivolous lack of due diligence, but childcare is a good one. I won't be one to benefit from by the time everything gets passed so I don't say this for me. I agreed with the idea even in 2006 when Paul Martin ran with it as a campaign promise and I had no intention on ever becoming a parent at that point.
In the short term it helps get the job market going. There has been a mass exodus of women from the work force because of the pandemic.
In the long term, it's a good measure as I mentioned in my previous post to ensure that parents (mostly mothers), don't end up taking too many years off in order to have children. Many don't end up going back to work because their skills are not longer current.
-
The problem is adding freebees when you don't have the money to pay for them and never will so you just keep borrowing to finance them.
As I said before, Debt to GDP nonsense is just about claiming we can depend on infinite growth to justify infinite borrowing. When the growth has a pickup, future generations get screwed.
Yes but doesn't the real nonsense start with the economic precept that it must grow or we die? When you think you're going to die its easy to claim or justify virtually anything.
Growth will clearly have to pickup off planet which is why I keep pointing at that asteroid Psyche that's worth a cool $10 quadrillion. Apparently there's only 4 quadrillion dollars presently circulating on Earth. Future generations are going to need shades the future is so bright. I don't think it will be hard to justify borrowing against that with the understanding of course that we need to start actually making progress towards getting to Psyche or better yet getting Psyche into Earth orbit. Perhaps the minute that asteroid starts inching closer to Earth the more Debt to GDP will matter again.
-
Well, you know I agree with you about the pandemic spending and the frivolous lack of due diligence, but childcare is a good one. I won't be one to benefit from by the time everything gets passed so I don't say this for me. I agreed with the idea even in 2006 when Paul Martin ran with it as a campaign promise and I had no intention on ever becoming a parent at that point.
In the short term it helps get the job market going. There has been a mass exodus of women from the work force because of the pandemic.
In the long term, it's a good measure as I mentioned in my previous post to ensure that parents (mostly mothers), don't end up taking too many years off in order to have children. Many don't end up going back to work because their skills are not longer current.
I don't think child care is a bad thing at all but it is unethical to expect people who aren't even born yet to pay for our social programs. My problem is I don't see this government concerned about actually paying for programs through revenues. It's a borrow and spend bunch we have in Ottawa and I don't see that changing.
-
No but all the gov cares about is dept-to-gdp so that's mainly what they'll look at.
you're welcome!
(https://i.imgur.com/4KzspV8.png)
-
Yes except if we just keep borrowing and not paying it off, each generation gets to service all the debt from previous generations on top of their own. Do you think it would be right for you to be servicing debt that paid for your great great grand parent's social programs and every generation in between?
fuhgeddaboudit!
(https://i.imgur.com/XOKEWpO.png)
-
fuhgeddaboudit!
(https://i.imgur.com/XOKEWpO.png)
That only works if you can keep interest rates at 1% or less.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zfq0Ghm.png)
-
say it ain't so! Eric O'Foole purposely parsing Minister Freeland's statement - oh my!
#ContextMatters
(https://i.imgur.com/y2nYaq1.png)
"The Liberals only care..." -Erin O'Toole
Since apparently this is how he quotes people, I'm sure he wouldn't care if people started using this.
-
Nobody is going to pay much of anything off. We'll just be paying the interest and so will they. As long as paying the interest is cheaper than actually paying off the debt there's little incentive to pay off the debt.
The government running deficits actually helps the economy grow when they spend the money on the correct things like helping people find jobs and pay for necessities or creating childcare spaces so parents can be productively involved in the workforce or run their independent businesses.
You guys consistently seem to think that the government running deficits is like individuals running household deficits. It's not. When you run a deficit it doesn't increase the amount of money you make at the end of the year most of the time, unless you're taking a business loan or a loan for an investment that will grow faster than the interest rate.
-
The government running deficits actually helps the economy grow when they spend the money on the correct things like helping people find jobs and pay for necessities or creating childcare spaces so parents can be productively involved in the workforce or run their independent businesses.
You guys consistently seem to think that the government running deficits is like individuals running household deficits. It's not. When you run a deficit it doesn't increase the amount of money you make at the end of the year most of the time, unless you're taking a business loan or a loan for an investment that will grow faster than the interest rate.
It means you are sentencing future generations to pay for your social programs if you never pay it off.
It means they run the risk of being buried by debt servicing costs when interest rates rise.
-
It means you are sentencing future generations to pay for your social programs if you never pay it off.
It means they run the risk of being buried by debt servicing costs when interest rates rise.
Probably best to let everything fall apart now then I guess.
-
It means you are sentencing future generations to pay for your social programs if you never pay it off.
But aren't future generations benefitting from us building a better world? That is the point of social programs isn't it?
It means they run the risk of being buried by debt servicing costs when interest rates rise.
What about the risk of destroying the economy by things that cause interest rates to get out of control?
Don't let them rise the by doing as MMT calls for; ensuring politicians and their parties retire debt during good times as they're supposed to instead of spending on their pet projects. If we can't get better control over our governments then of course things will blow up in our kid's faces...just like they blow up in our's.
The key to everything is more rigorous robust institutions of accountability. Think of these as being like control rods in a nuclear reactor.
-
But aren't future generations benefitting from us building a better world? That is the point of social programs isn't it?
Will they be benefiting from continuing to pay for daycare their great great grandparents received? Are we building a better world for us and justifying it by saying it is for them?
What about the risk of destroying the economy by things that cause interest rates to get out of control?
By continuing to dump new money into the economy much faster than the economy grows they will be driving inflation. Then we will have the choice of just allowing inflation to run or raising rates to control it. By simply looking at debt to GDP numbers and pointing at other countries for justification with no intention of ever paying any debt off, we are just setting a trap for future generations.
Don't let them rise the by doing as MMT calls for; ensuring politicians and their parties retire debt during good times as they're supposed to instead of spending on their pet projects. If we can't get better control over our governments then of course things will blow up in our kid's faces...just like they blow up in our's.
The key to everything is more rigorous robust institutions of accountability. Think of these as being like control rods in a nuclear reactor.
That would be nice but we have become a can we afford the payments society and our governments just reflect that.
-
The government running deficits actually helps the economy grow when they spend the money on the correct things like helping people find jobs and pay for necessities or creating childcare spaces so parents can be productively involved in the workforce or run their independent businesses.
You guys consistently seem to think that the government running deficits is like individuals running household deficits. It's not. When you run a deficit it doesn't increase the amount of money you make at the end of the year most of the time, unless you're taking a business loan or a loan for an investment that will grow faster than the interest rate.
I never said or implied that running a country's debt is the same as an individual's debt. I agree that gov debt can be an investment that creates more GDP at the end of the day.
And individual, however, can also invest in good or bad things that grow their finances just like the government can. Student debt can be a good investment if you pay for a useful degree, and mortgage debt is usually good in the longterm as your house will escalate in value, and even a car loan can be good if you can only get to work by vehicle. If you're running up credit card debt to buy fancy clothes or vacations then that's another story.
How the gov vs individuals borrow is different, as is their ability to pay back debt or print money. As an individual it sure would be nice to take out a bigger mortgage to pay for a nicer house if I never had to pay back the mortgage and could let someone else's great grandkids pay for it.
-
If you look at waldo's chart and compare it to historical interest rates, rates have a bigger effect on debt servicing costs than the amount of debt. That is changing now as the government drives up debt on a scale never seen outside of a world war.
-
Canada has borrowed more money to spend since the pandamic than any other G-20 country.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/budget-deficit-canada_ca_5f89a94fc5b62dbe71c23326
https://www.wsj.com/articles/canadas-covid-19-response-is-to-spend-heavily-and-ignore-the-deficitfor-now-11606825162
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/canadas-spending-and-deficits-higher-than-comparable-countries-during-pandemic
-
instead of yet another thread drifting to satisfy member wilber's want to show his ignorance in regards deficit/debt, isn't there anyone wanting to discuss the actual 2021 budget? ... you know, like the thread title says!
(https://i.imgur.com/zfq0Ghm.png)
-
There's not really any specifics that I've seen on the childcare thing. So far it seems like maybe funding through provinces? (except Quebec...so they have to pay for their own. That doesn't seem fair). Not really sure how I feel about it yet.
It seems like they just threw the childcare thing in there as an election promise without much a plan to implement yet. They've been busy with dealing with COVID.
It's not a bad budget. Pretty predictable. Basically just funding COVID recovery. Disappointed not more done to control housing affordability/price inflation.
I wonder if the Liberals are going to try to delay the release of tax return info related to COVID benefits until the election is over.
-
But aren't future generations benefitting from us building a better world? That is the point of social programs isn't it?
That's the trick, isn't it? How do we make sure the money we spend today actually builds a better world for people who come after?
As a country we spent money like crazy during WWII. Did it build a better world? I think that most people agree that yeah, defeating Nazi Germany was worth the expense.
As a country we spent money like crazy during the 1970s and 1980s. Did it build a better world? Maybe for people who were there at the time... but I'm not sure you can point to anything that exists today as a permanent lasting benefit to the country as a whole from all that spending.
If we spend a bunch of money today, how do we make sure we spend it on things that will create lasting benefit for the whole country rather than go straight into the pockets of people who are already very well off?
-k
-
But aren't future generations benefitting from us building a better world? That is the point of social programs isn't it?
Sure. But I also think it has to be sustainable, and there's an ethical argument to be made that each generation should pay their own way. There's exceptions during emergencies, like COVID or WWII where deficits can drastically rise. But if tons of people got free money in the last year why shouldn't they pay it off over time? Why is that someone else's burden? It's really easy to kick the can down the road. If I could have someone else's grandkids pay off my big mortgage that sure would be sweet!
Are future generations benefiting from inheriting debt or many billions in debt charges? Luckily the feds are still in decent shape financially compared to other countries, it will be ~50% of GDP for a while (up from 30% pre-COVID). But provincial debt is also massive. Healthcare is the country's most important social program and it needs much more funding. The mental health funding in this country is a joke.
-
It seems to have lots of good intentions, but I am concerned with whether the results will line up with the intentions.
A $15 minimum wage seems like a good intention, but some kinds of employers are already on the brink. As online shopping puts more brick and mortar retailers out of business, a $15 minimum wage might be the last nail in the coffin for some. If stores fold and $13/hr retail jobs end up being replaced with gig-economy jobs where you might make $75/day as an Intelcom delivery contractor, is that really a win for the people you're trying to help? Giving people rent assistance sounds like a great idea unless it ends up driving up rent prices. These kinds of things.
Maybe I'm becoming too cynical... my instinct is that whenever the government opens its wallet for some noble cause, the investor class or landlord class is going to find a way to Hoover most of the money that comes out. I think we've already seen that to some extent with the covid assistance money the government has already spent... they've already unintentionally enriched the richest business in Canada. I suspect that the biggest players will likewise find a way to make themselves the biggest beneficiaries of whatever "great reset" plans Ms Freeland has in mind. I guess the good news, on that front, is that we know from her writings that Ms Freeland is an even bigger cynic than I am, and she has no doubt put much thought into all of this.
-k
-
It seems to have lots of good intentions, but I am concerned with whether the results will line up with the intentions.
A $15 minimum wage seems like a good intention, but some kinds of employers are already on the brink. As online shopping puts more brick and mortar retailers out of business, a $15 minimum wage might be the last nail in the coffin for some. If stores fold and $13/hr retail jobs end up being replaced with gig-economy jobs where you might make $75/day as an Intelcom delivery contractor, is that really a win for the people you're trying to help? Giving people rent assistance sounds like a great idea unless it ends up driving up rent prices. These kinds of things.
Maybe I'm becoming too cynical... my instinct is that whenever the government opens its wallet for some noble cause, the investor class or landlord class is going to find a way to Hoover most of the money that comes out.
Agreed. The bourgeoisie are much nimbler than the government. Instead of a $15 minimum wage I think it would make a lot more sense to control the rising cost of housing so everyone can better afford a place to live, and it would also reduce rents.
I've heard some friends say their employers have intentions of having them work from home permanently. In a society which is the most socially isolated in human history I find this disturbing. People aren't meant to work at home in communities with few social contacts, especially the young and/or single. How often do most people even talk to their neighbours anymore? IMO it should be a choice up to the worker. Anything to make more profit.
You look at the stats and over the past 10 years young people are going on less dates, hanging out with friends face to face less, talking on the phone less. It's nuts. Sperm counts in young men are even going down for some reason lol. Once they perfect virtual reality young people won't even leave their rooms.
-
If we spend a bunch of money today, how do we make sure we spend it on things that will create lasting benefit for the whole country rather than go straight into the pockets of people who are already very well off?
-k
How? My old go-to as usual, people in power need to be monitored a degree that would make Orwell blush. It's the only thing we haven't tried. Power is what needs redistributing, money is not the bigger issue here.
The problem doesn't seem very complicated, notwithstanding the solution I'll grant but I'm convinced it can be solved.