All 3 Main Parties Committed To Running A Deficit

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mighty Middle
All 3 Main Parties Committed To Running A Deficit

Isn't this a switch from 2015 when the Conservatives and NDP were vehemently opposed to running a deficit?

Justin Trudeau said his Government would not be in a deficit by 2019. Yet here we are, and he has no plans to get out of deficit.

While Andrew Scheer has now pledged to be in deficit for five years (if he were elected PM).

Not to be left out Jagmeet Singh said in 2017 - "I don’t have a firm line on balanced budgets. But there’s no way I would ever accept austerity.” Since Canada is running a deficit, it doesn't look like Singh would be opposed to running a deficit if he were elected PM.

So when did deficits become Vogue when in 2015 being deficit was the boogeyman?

 

 

JKR

Mighty Middle wrote:

So when did deficits become Vogue when in 2015 being deficit was the boogeyman?

When the US started running almost $1 trillion deficits during boom times? What will these deficits look like during the next recession? I don’t think Canada can balance its budget and maintain competitive tax rates with the US while the US is running such huge deficits.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Since Canada is running a deficit, it doesn't look like Singh would be opposed to running a deficit if he were elected PM.

There's a bit of difference between "probably wouldn't be opposed to" and "committed to".

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Since Canada is running a deficit, it doesn't look like Singh would be opposed to running a deficit if he were elected PM.

There's a bit of difference between "probably wouldn't be opposed to" and "committed to".

Canada is currently has a deficit and Jagmeet said "I would ever accept austerity" - so he has no choice but to run a deficit as he has backed himself into a corner by ruling out austerity.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So austerity is the only possible way to address a deficit?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Since Canada is running a deficit, it doesn't look like Singh would be opposed to running a deficit if he were elected PM.

There's a bit of difference between "probably wouldn't be opposed to" and "committed to".

Canada is currently has a deficit and Jagmeet said "I would ever accept austerity" - so he has no choice but to run a deficit as he has backed himself into a corner by ruling out austerity.

If he didn't rule out austerity what would be the point of the NDP? Besides running as a tough love fiscal manager didn't do go so well when Tom led the NDP. Ensuring that we stop running a deficit against the environment is way more important for the long term health of everything, including the economy than balancing the books. Its time to use the Bank of Canada like we did before Trudeau the First gave away that sovereign power to his banker friends.

WWWTT

Appears that Scheer is doing two things. First is out maneuvering Justin as a more credible manager of the Canadian economy. 

The other is that he’s actually giving himself and the conservatives a more selflessness image!

I’m going to speculate that this is part of his goal. It’s still early and he may not build on this delay to a balanced budget. 

Mighty Middle

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So austerity is the only possible way to address a deficit?

What would your suggestion be to eliminate the deficit? Jagmeet has already proposed raising Capital Gains Taxes to pay for Pharmacare and retrofitting buildings. So if he using that revenue for those projects, how do you eliminate the deficit without austerity.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So austerity is the only possible way to address a deficit?

What would your suggestion be to eliminate the deficit? Jagmeet has already proposed raising Capital Gains Taxes to pay for Pharmacare and retrofitting buildings. So if he using that revenue for those projects, how do you eliminate the deficit without austerity.

Maybe tax the oil and gas industry instead of subsidizing it. Tax Bombardier instead of bailing it out. Aggressively go after the tax havens where our elite has stashed all its ill gotten gains.  There are two sides of any ledger and balancing a budget does not have to be a matter of cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So austerity is the only possible way to address a deficit?

If a government has ruled out raising taxes on the wealthy, yes.  There's no way out of a deficit without either increasing revenue or slashing the social wage to nothing.  It always means turning into Roy Romanow.

Mighty Middle

Well Jagmeet told Macleans he believes in “deficit funding to ensure that we continue with our social programs that we need.”

JKR

The Conservatives probably want to campaign on cutting taxes so they need to allow for deficit spending in order have a credible election platform. My guess is that they will put an income tax cut in their platform and possibly also a corporate tax cut. They might even run on reducing the GST by another point. 

Mighty Middle

JKR wrote:

They might even run on reducing the GST by another point. 

Every credible economist panned the GST cut when Stephen Harper did it.  It really took revenues out of Social Programs.

pietro_bcc

Scheer promising a balanced budget after 5 years, oh what a coincidence that the only way he can keep that promise is to be voted in for a second term.

As for balanced budgets. The argument that balanced budgets=cuts is such nonsense corporate framing that those on the left for some reason concede. Taxes can be raised, they aren't legally locked at current levels or below.

JKR

Mighty Middle wrote:

JKR wrote:

They might even run on reducing the GST by another point. 

Every credible economist panned the GST cut when Stephen Harper did it.  It really took revenues out of Social Programs.

And it helped the Harper Conservatives to form a government and it helped them have an excuse to cut social spending and it prevented future governments from using the extra funds for more social spending.

JKR

pietro_bcc wrote:

Scheer promising a balanced budget after 5 years, oh what a coincidence that the only way he can keep that promise is to be voted in for a second term.

As for balanced budgets. The argument that balanced budgets=cuts is such nonsense corporate framing that those on the left for some reason concede. Taxes can be raised, they aren't legally locked at current levels or below.

Who wants to run an election on taxing the voters?

LB Cultured Thought

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So austerity is the only possible way to address a deficit?

Any government that reduces spending below what was proposed by a previous government (even if higher than now) is now deemed austerity and something that will risk lives, so yes, it seems to be the only way. 

Aristotleded24

Why is this a shock? Politicians repeatedly fail to balance budgets because that gives them political cover to underspend on services for their citizens while their friends who got them elected make out with all the cash.

Pondering

This will be the first election in which the parliamentary budget officer evaluates the platforms. That should be interesting. 

NDPP

Given the American empire's determination that 'defence' and 'national security' are of the utmost importance to defend against their own decline and the rise of evil Russia and China, you can expect to be convinced that vast expenditures will be necessary. Beware of the official pick-pocketing that is to come.

WWWTT

That will/is the story from the ICM. But I suspect it’s to inflate orders from the US war production machine. 

With Boeing taking a huge hit from order withdrawals over its 737 scare, the US hi tech aerospace sector is probably in its worst competitive position ever!

I’ll continue in another thread