The 2009 Canadian Budget Thread

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Has anyone been able to find more info about the programs in bold?

EDIT: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2009/plan/topics-sujets-eng.asp

I would give it a bit of time; these programs all have to be rolled out now.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mrdeeds

I believe the term you meant to use was partisan. For the most part many of us are myself included.

You're right....I meant to say partisan. I'm partisan in most ways as well, but I also like to think that if the "other side" has a good idea that I would be big enough to acknowledge that as well.

[Ford Prefect]

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand economics. I have a question therefore that maybe somebody more enlightened on these matters can explain for me.

If I understand things correctly, a big reason for the global economic crisis is too much risky credit being given out and over spending. Is that correct? If so, how does the government overspending and running a deficit fix the problem? Isn't this just more of the same behaviour that created the problem in the first place?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand economics. I have a question therefore that maybe somebody more enlightened on these matters can explain for me.

If I understand things correctly, a big reason for the global economic crisis is too much risky credit being given out and over spending. Is that correct? If so, how does the government overspending and running a deficit fix the problem? Isn't this just more of the same behaviour that created the problem in the first place?

I'm no pro, but I think the general idea is to have loose purse strings to turn things around when things are going poorly and tight strings when things are going well so that you have that money when you actually need it.

The fact that "we" spent like drunken sailors when things were going well doesn't change the underlying economic principle.

Obama's idealogy, if I understand it correctly says that cutting spending now would exponentially increase the problem. 1930's depression being the best example of that, and Japan in the 90s kept turning off the taps too early.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I'll be the first to admit I don't understand economics. I have a question therefore that maybe somebody more enlightened on these matters can explain for me.

If I understand things correctly, a big reason for the global economic crisis is too much risky credit being given out and over spending. Is that correct? If so, how does the government overspending and running a deficit fix the problem? Isn't this just more of the same behaviour that created the problem in the first place?

I'm not going to try to explain everything, but there are a number of things at work here:

A) Credit given to a lot of parties who shouldn't have had it

B) That credit being packaged up and resold around the world as AAA rated

C) Because of A+B then banks stopped trusting each other and stopped extending any credit, thus tightening the system and effectively grinding it to a halt.

So the government getting people to spend, and spending money to loosen credit is going to help. Its not about making sure that anyone and everyone can get a loan/mortgage, its about the day to day operations of business and them being able to secure financing for development and day to day business.

That is a total Coles notes version, and I'm leaving a lot out and glossing over even more!

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm no pro, but I think the general idea is to have loose purse strings to turn things around and when things are going poorly and tight strings when things are going well so that you have that money when you actually need it.

The fact that "we" spent like drunken sailors when things were going well doesn't change the underlying economic principle.

Obama's idealogy, if I understand it correctly says that cutting spending now would exponentially increase the problem. 1930's depression being the best example of that, and Japan in the 90s kept turning off the taps too early.

So where the system is out of whack is with the overspending during boom times.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm no pro, but I think the general idea is to have loose purse strings to turn things around and when things are going poorly and tight strings when things are going well so that you have that money when you actually need it.

The fact that "we" spent like drunken sailors when things were going well doesn't change the underlying economic principle.

Obama's idealogy, if I understand it correctly says that cutting spending now would exponentially increase the problem. 1930's depression being the best example of that, and Japan in the 90s kept turning off the taps too early.

That is basically the case, but in the 30's the issue was the banks weren't lending to anyone. That cripples business. Businesses need to borrow money to complete capital projects, and need access to credit facilities to be able to buy inventory and things like that. This is the credit freeze that has caused the problems over the past couple of quarters, or longer in some areas.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Given the fact it likely wont stimulate any economic growth its very disproportionate as far as this budget is concerned.

Well, it might generate some jobs in and around reserves that might affect taxpaying citizens, so its something.

Regardless its political correctness gone wrong, and overly disproportionate.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Well, it might generate some jobs in and around reserves that might affect taxpaying citizens, so its something.

Regardless its political correctness gone wrong, and overly disproportionate.

Didn't Preston Manning say that the government trying to generate economic growth was like trying to jump-start a 747 with a AA battery?

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Slava

Man this board is just so political. If the Liberals bring down the budget most of the posters hate it because the Liberals did it. The Conservatives bring down a budget and people still blame the Liberals for the overspending?

Lets just take a look at recent history: The conservatives spent more money than any government in history last year, all on their own. The year before that they spent an enormous amount of money as well. Now this budget also has very little in common with conservative ideology. Surely you can't pin this all on the Liberals and Jack Layton? Some of the fingerpointing should be at Harper and Flaherty?

(Not saying all of the posters here as some have acknowledged this already, but there are a few who are still in this camp!)

I think a lot of it has to do with the minority government situation. It's hard to get a read on a parties policies when they need the support of another party just to stay as the government. This is probably not helped by the fact that both the Liberals and Conservatives seem to have fundamental differences in regards to how to "fix" the economy, or make the country "better".

That being said, I'm happy with putting the blame for this whole mess on all parties involved. The Conservatives for trying to appease everyone, after trying to strong-arm the other parties. The Liberals for forcing the budget to be like this, with the threat of yet ANOTHER election or an unpopular "coalition". And the NDP for having a leader who is a grease ball, and didn't like anything the Conservative brought out, just on principle.

In times like these someone has to remind them to work to benefit Canada and the people that elected them, and keep their power struggles to a minimum.

[Kerplunk]

I kind of like the idea of providing updates to the House regarding the allotment and effect of the budget...although I'm not sure if the times the Liberals are forcing are appropriate. Does anyone know if they are going to enforce benchmarks for calling non-confidence if the budget isn't doing what it is supposed to?