Sentences with phrase «spending over deficit»

Not exact matches

The Liberals produced a modest $ 600 - million surplus in 2017 - 18, but it will be quickly replaced by a total of $ 31.9 - billion in deficit spending over the following six years.

The accord not only greatly increases discretionary spending over the next two years, it lifts the baseline for future outlays by double - digits, putting deficits and debt on a far steeper trajectory.

Instead, we get the usual budgetary hallucinogens: graphs showing the deficit casually marching down to zero over four or five years and gauzy references to an upcoming spending review that will discover $ 4 billion in annual savings through??? get this??? «greater efficiency and effectiveness.»

A widening U.S. current account deficit and greater spending increase the greenback's supply over time, said Marc Franklin of Conning Asia Pacific.

And there's a bruising fight with Congress over spending and the federal deficit on the horizon, just days after Obama and Congress averted the fiscal cliff with a last - minute deal over the New Year's holiday.

The deal, which is still making its way through Congress after an eleventh hour push from party bigs, has three main components: It immediately raises the debt ceiling, includes around $ 2.1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, and creates a special Congressional committee to come up with long term deficit - reduction suggestions by this Thanksgiving.

«Public - sector spending — a strong, steady contributor to the economy over the past decade — is now being curtailed as federal and provincial governments try to bring deficits under control,» the Conference Board of Canada noted in a recent forecast.

«Fitch believes that the province will also be challenged in restraining ongoing capital spending to make progress in lowering the high debt burden and accumulated deficit over time,» it said.

CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017 - 2026 period, enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $ 1,022 billion and reduce revenues by $ 701 billion, for a net reduction of $ 321 billion in the deficit over that period (see Table 1, at the end of this document):

CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017 - 2026 period, enacting H.R. 1628 would reduce direct spending by $ 1,111 billion and reduce revenues by $ 992 billion, for a net reduction of $ 119 billion in the deficit over that period.

The president's base won't revolt over DACA — compared to Mr. Trump's newfound love for a Korean dictator and deficit spending, it's small potatoes.

The new federal budget plan matters and is increasing defense and nondefense spending to the tune of $ 300 billion, which would put the fiscal year 2019 deficit at over $ 1 trillion or 6 % of gross domestic product (GDP).

Professor Scarthe also recommends that, once the deficit is eliminated in 2015 - 16, any future government should gradually start creating a deficit by, for example, spending on infrastructure and this could be done while at the same time maintaining a stable debt to GDP ratio of around 25 per cent over the medium to longer term.

The substantial wiggle room implicit in those words served as a reminder of how abruptly Flaherty shifted, in late 2008 and early 2009, from predicting no recession and no deficits, to having to acknowledge a punishing recession and preside over unprecedented deficit spending to combat it.

But this wrenching concern over the deficit — particularly when the situation in Puerto Rico remains so dire — is hard for some to swallow when conservatives are simultaneously pushing forward a tax reform package that could leave a more than a trillion - dollar hole in the deficit and have signed on to spending bills that added more than $ 100 billion to defense spending, without the immediate promise of offsets elsewhere.

With the ending of the stimulus spending, the deficit is forecast to decline steadily over the medium term, with a surplus expected towards the end of the period (2015 - 16 or 2016 - 17).

President Donald Trump on Monday will offer a budget plan that falls far short of eliminating the government's deficit over 10 years, conceding that huge tax cuts and new spending increases make this goal unattainable, three people familiar with the...

In your 2010 and 2012 budgets you introduced cuts in spending designed to eliminate the deficit over the «medium - term».

In the media briefing following his meeting with private sector economists on October 28th, the Minister of Finance stated that the lower than expected deficit outcome for 2012 - 13, of $ 6.9 billion, was due to the Government's «tight control over spending ``.

NO: Continued deficit spending by the federal government is not sustainable over the long run.

The legislation enforces limits on discretionary spending until 2021, establishes a procedure to increase the debt limit, creates a Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction with a stated goal of achieving at least $ 1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years, and establishes automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $ 1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such sDeficit Reduction to propose further deficit reduction with a stated goal of achieving at least $ 1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years, and establishes automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $ 1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such sdeficit reduction with a stated goal of achieving at least $ 1.5 trillion in budgetary savings over 10 years, and establishes automatic procedures for reducing spending by as much as $ 1.2 trillion if legislation originating with the new joint select committee does not achieve such savings.

If the government wants to continue to deficit spend for entitlements, then it may need to consider selling some of the over $ 128 trillion in assets it owns to cover the deficit.

In addition, Bloomberg analysts see increased deficit spending over the next several years, provided everything else remains the same.

Many Democrats claim the plan — which includes both corporate and income tax reform — favors only the top earners, while fiscal conservatives worry the tax cuts could dig the U.S. deeper into deficit spending and add to the already - mountainous national debt, requiring another showdown over raising the debt ceiling.

While reducing federal spending during an economic slowdown was not the President's preference, he recognized the political realities and undertook a series of negotiations with the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, aimed at achieving a compromise plan to reduce the deficit over time through a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.

While Budget 2018 - 19 does forecast a decline in the debt - to - GDP ratio over the next five years, the decline is entirely the result of economic growth, as government debt will continue to grow for the next five years due to deficit spending though at least 2022 - 23.

Over the next few years deficit spending in excess of $ 1 trillion US dollars per year will be the norm in the US, but there is more to this than the headline figures reveal.

It's likely that this deficit will widen over the next few years and, unless many billions of dollars are spent soon, the world is facing the prospect of a significant shortage of oil in the early years of the next decade.

Rising deficits in the President's budget are the result of both spending and revenue growth over time.

-- 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.

It also includes cuts to non-defense spending designed to lower the federal budget deficit by more than $ 3 trillion over the next decade.

The combination of Greece's government no longer being able to float the economy by vast borrowing (Greece's budget deficit was over 15 % of GDP in 2009), tax increases, spending cuts, and unimplemented market reforms has led to five straight years of recession.

Galupo also writes that: Right now, Romney boosters like Levin are chortling over the political difficulty Obama faces as a consequence of having paid for new spending rather than finance it through deficits.

Even with all those spending cuts, the Ryan budget still includes deficits of over 5 trillion dollars over the same period.

Arguments over government spending delayed decisions on the American Jobs Act, the debt ceiling and the deficit reduction.

I would argue that some measurements along the lines of defense spending vs. gdp, defense spending vs. deficit,..., presumably over a period of time to iron out inter-period kinks, would be a good starting point.

His unrivaled negotiating skills and ties to big spending groups have for over a decade assured that budgets always had deficits, increased debt, added new taxes, and reflected a consistently anti-business bias.

Given the debate over the federal deficit, government spending on social services, such as Medicare and Social Security is under increased scrutiny, with many Republicans mounting an all - out assault.

The deficit reduction programme takes precedence over any of the other measures in this agreement, and the speed of implementation of any measures that have a cost to the public finances will depend on decisions to be made in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

A recent survey carried out by You Gov for the Sheffield University Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) demonstrated that voters in Britain now prioritise growth over deficit reduction (47 - 34 %), deeming current spending cuts to be hasty and excessive.

According to details of the budget provided by a White House official, it will aim to reduce the deficit by $ 1.8 trillion over the next decade through tax increases and a plan to decrease the growth in Social Security spending.

At Left Foot Forward, the Fabian Society's Sunder Katwala offers a very interesting analysis of the debate over the government's deficit reduction and spending cuts programme.

The plan announced was for # 25bn of spending cutbacks over the period 2015 - 17 to deal with the UK's continuing deficit.

Accordingly, they decisively favour a description of Plan A: «borrowing more will make matters worse... we have to bring the debt and the deficit under control even if it has some painful effects for the economy in the short term» over Plan B: «the government's spending cuts and tax rises are hurting the economy.

Being frugal in the Assembly helped him eliminate a 5 billion dollar deficit, and write the first budget in over 50 - years that cut state spending.

DiNapoli's office says that without cuts in spending, those surpluses will actually average out to be deficits of $ 3.3 billion over the next several fiscal years.

Politicians are falling over themselves to tell us how hard, how fast and how deep they will cut public spending in order to rein - in the spiralling Budget deficit.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies have already calculated that a faster programme of deficit reduction would require # 8bn of extra spending cuts or tax rises over the parliament.

One point eight million television views tune in to watch the three men vying to be chancellor after the next election clash over the public deficit, taxation policy and spending cuts.

The IFS said that the Conservative plans to get rid of «the bulk» of the deficit over the course of the next parliament will involve the biggest spending cuts since the second world war, while Labour and Lib Dem plans will result in deeper cuts that at any time since the 1970s.