Most major
government running deficits, and racking up huge debts, adding to overall liability promises from entitlements.
Well it's not too bad at all if you're a banker because now these countries like Greece and Ireland are broke and now the bankers get to go to them and say, well, you have to finance your government spending not by
government running a deficit — but sell us your real estate, sell us your mines.
Only the federal
government runs a deficit on a regular basis.
We don't save personally (particularly Baby Boomers), and
our governments run deficits (even more on an accrual basis when we look at Medicare, Social Security, and other long - term inadequately funded programs.
Not exact matches
Grantham believes it's likely the majority of pension plans will
run a long - term
deficit, and this will have major policy implications for
government.
Balanced - budget law allows the federal
government to
run a
deficit when recession looms.
Premier Kathleen Wynne defended the
government's pre-election budget, which will
run a $ 6.7 - billion
deficit in 2018 - 2019, saying Moody's change wasn't a credit downgrade, which would effect borrowing costs for the province.
In addition, they argued, the curve will likely steepen as the U.S.
government runs a bigger
deficit and issues more debt, they said.
Given that the
government is currently
running a
deficit and is $ 20 trillion in debt, scratching up the money to redeem those bonds would require either higher taxes or more
government borrowing.
When
governments run prolonged
deficits, they are spending money that belongs to future generations.
Following the 2015 election, the Liberal
government abandoned pledges to
run annual
deficits of no more than $ 10 billion and to balance the books in four years.
Central banks printed money with abandon while
governments shovelled it into failed banks and
ran up massive
deficits.
However, even when the federal
government ran surpluses in the late 1990s, our current account
deficit continued to increase.
By 1997 - 98 the
deficit had been eliminated and the federal
government then
ran surplsuses for the next nine years.
The Parliamentary Budget Office has been warning that the federal
government has been
running a «structural
deficit» for several years now, and the Conservative
government has been dismissing those warnings for just as long.
According to the Mr. Oliver, and presumably the PM, all
governments in advanced economies (e.g., G7 countries, G20 countries, and the EURO area) are unethical, because they all
run deficits and have no interest in eliminating them.
«The central banks» plans for printing money to buy bonds from national
governments running huge
deficits can not be considered a long - term solution to debt problems.»
Unfortunately, most Canadians seem to have drunk the conservative fiscal «grape juice» that all
deficits and debt are bad and that any
government that would
run a
deficit, no matter how small, is not a
government to be trusted with managing the country's finances.
According to Joe Oliver, most
governments in Canada since Confederation were unethical because they
ran deficits.
Unless the federal
government believes that it is more important to steadily reduce the debt ratio (to 20, 15, 10, or zero per cent), rather than dealing with other critical policy issues, then the federal
government will soon have to start
running deficits.
Unlike the U.S. federal
government, most states and cities have constitutions that prevent them from
running budget
deficits.
The Conservative
government has
run a
deficit since 2008 - 09 and, has left future generations of Canadians additional debt of more than $ 150 billion.
The
government would like to
run on a record of good economic management, defined as simply eliminating the
deficit.
If the Conservative
government wants to stabilize the debt - to - GDP ratio at 25 per cent, then at that ratio, the
government must
run a permanent and growing structural
deficit that will result in the
government's debt increasing at the same rate of growth as the economy.
However, in order for this not to happen the
government would have to
run ongoing
deficits to stabilize the debt ratio.
This legislation is all about sending a «message» to the Conservative base that, if elected, a Conservative
government will not «
run deficits».
Marc Lee, economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a progressive Vancouver think tank, says that
government action on the reforms suggested by labour will be hampered by ideological objections to
running deficits in bad times.
If China
runs a capital account
deficit and the US a capital account surplus, and these are roughly equal to net purchases by the PBoC and other Chinese
government entities of US
government bonds and US assets, China will
run a current account surplus exactly equal to its capital account
deficit.
However, in times of recession, you want
government to
run a
deficit.
Economics textbooks will tell you that hiking taxes and implementing draconian spending cuts will lead to
government's
running smaller
deficits.
But claiming as the Conservatives would that, if the federal
government were to
run a
deficit, Canada would soon become like Greece is just utter «bull crap».
But according to a recent C.D. Howe study, the federal
government could
run a permanent structural
deficit of 1 % of GDP ($ 20 billion) and still maintain a stable debt ratio of 25 %, which happens to be the Conservative
government's target for 2022.
There is no narrative that sets out the longer -
run economic and social challenges, and there is no discussion of how these challenges are interrelated Eliminating the
deficit has been the cornerstone of the
government's fiscal policy since 2010.
In our view
running annual
deficits approaching 2 per cent of GDP would be «imprudent» and would put at risk the
government's commitment to a «sustainable» fiscal framework.
If you are right about secular stagnation, the nations of the world need their
governments to
run bigger
deficits, at least for now and maybe indefinitely.
Until the Federal
government can pass a budget (they haven't in almost four years), remove the 7 - year long ZIRP which penalizes savers and rewards debtors, and find a way to eventually remove the excess QEs and > $ 1 trillion annual spending
deficits, I will stay on the porch while the «big dogs»
run.
The federal
government's fiscal position would no longer be sustainable — it would be
running a structural
deficit which could only be eliminated through program cuts and / or revenue increases.
They elected a
government that is prepared to invest in the future and
run deficits.
A larger
government does not mean
running deficits or a higher level of debt or debt burden.
NO: Continued
deficit spending by the federal
government is not sustainable over the long
run.
With the federal budget coming soon, it is also worth recalling that the Liberals promised to
run deficits of no more than $ 10 - billion for a maximum of three years, but the
government's latest projections peg its annual
deficits at almost $ 30 - billion with no timeline for returning to a balanced budget.
Fiscally, India has managed to bring its federal
government deficit (as a proportion of GDP) down to 3.5 % this year, but the states
run aggregate
deficits in the order of 2.5 — 3 % as well, so the total
government deficit is around 6.5 % of GDP.
Students in every mainstream macroeconomics class, and that means almost all students, would have predicted, based on the nonsense they were learning, that the high
deficits and high public debt ratios in Japan at the time, should have driven interest rates sky high, that bond markets should have stopped buying
government bonds, that the
government should have
run out of money, and all the time that these disasters were unfolding, that inflation should have been be galloping towards hyperinflation.
The budget makes it very clear that the
government is rejecting an «austerity» fiscal strategy and instead is prepared do
run relatively small
deficits (1/2 of 1 % of GDP), resulting from investments in both physical and human capital.
-- Member of Parliament David Yurdiga «The federal
government thinks that it is acceptable to
run a $ 30 billion
deficit and spending billions on foreign aid and international climate change projects, as well as on newcomer settlement programs all the while cutting over $ 100 million from the three northern territories over the course of the next five years.
The new
government may be prepared to
run bigger
deficits than stated in the platform.
After
running a $ 100bn
deficit in 2015, it has been forced to suddenly slash
government salaries and perks this year.
At the same time, the
government's decision to
run a
deficit means a weak dollar, and experts warn that more debt also means larger interest payments and a weaker currency.
But all this is history, with the
government now
running the largest
deficit ever.
The previous
government implemented the Balanced Budget Act, which precluded the
running of
deficits, except in extraordinary circumstances.