Sentences with phrase «government runs a deficit»

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.

Most major government running deficits, and racking up huge debts, adding to overall liability promises from entitlements.

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.