Bush's Fiscal Success

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Lodi
And how is the long-run fiscal picture positive when the neocons are trying to get more wars going and thus more wasted wealth for wars?

Seriously, grow out of your left-wing conspiracy theories. I say this as a person who wants to be your future friend: There's a whole real world out there to be lived in.

If you don't get it, google "neoconservative". It's not an empty label with which to paint everyone around the Bush administration.

They used to have a little, but their influence was always overblown.

They used to have a lot, there's no way the administration's post-conquest plan for Iraq would've been simply "they'll greet us as liberators" if their influence were next to nothing. Nobody in the admin knew what exactly they were supposed to do when they actually achieved their primary objective -- that's a big, big fuck up. Inexcusable in such a high level.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS
And before the Canucks come in and start talking trash about their fiscal management, let me be the first to say that the Canadian fiscal turnaround has been impressive.

Yo, b!tch! Our fiscal management has been the shiznit. Yo' mama so fat, she can't even run a balanced budget.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
And before the Canucks come in and start talking trash about their fiscal management, let me be the first to say that the Canadian fiscal turnaround has been impressive.

Thanks -- Not bad that we kept our budget in surplus while you folks stayed in recession. Even better that we avoiced recession ourselves when usually our economy folllows yours.

I am happy to see any signs of the US heading back to better fiscal management, since we do want our best customer to stay financially healthy

[Lodi]

You Finns are tenacious.

[DanS]

Lately (I mean the last several months), how much have the high oil prices impacted your surplus?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
Lately (I mean the last several months), how much have the high oil prices impacted your surplus?

Federally I don't think it has made as huge an impact as it has for the province of Alberta ( they get actual royalties and cash from land sales while the feds collect only taxes)

I have not yet seen any updated surplus numbers but the surplus predates the run-up in oil prices so I think it will merely make a good situation better.

[DanS]

Did you guys put the windfall into a fund a la Norway and Alaska, like what was being discussed?

[notyoueither]

The price of oil has no direct connection to the Federal budget, except making it more or less expensive to operate.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DanS
Did you guys put the windfall into a fund a la Norway and Alaska, like what was being discussed?

Alberta does, in spades.

http://www.finance.gov.ab.ca/business/ahstf/index.html

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
Did you guys put the windfall into a fund a la Norway and Alaska, like what was being discussed?

Canada doesn't -- again since they don't benefit that much but Alberta has set up a number of rainy day funds to assist whenever this ends. Alberta spent a lot of the money eliminating the provincial debt and are now frankly running out of ideas. The current premier is retiring so we will likely to have to wait for his successor to see what route the government will take with all the extar money

[Flubber]

BUt back to Canada generally, the surplus is not a new thing

Old article but you get the picture-- IN 2004 we hah had SEVEN straight surplus years-- I've deleted portions of the artical that explain simple concepts but its at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget/

Ottawa's cup runneth over
Federal budget surpluses – FAQs

CBC News Online | October 13, 2004


Finance Minister Ralph Goodale
On March 23, 2004, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale predicted that for the fiscal year that ended March 31, 2004, the government would have $1.9 billion left over after all its bills were paid. On Oct. 13, 2004, Goodale announced that tax revenues were higher than expected and the actual surplus was $9.1 billion – almost five times what he budgeted for.

Do governments always run surpluses?
No. But the federal government has been in the black for seven years in a row. The accumulated surplus over that time has been more than $60 billion. The actual surpluses for the past seven years have been:
2003/04 $9.1B
2002/03 $7B
2001/02 $8.9B
2000/01 $18.1B
1999/00 $12.7B
1998/99 $3.1B
1997/98 $3.8B

Before 1997, the government had run surpluses only twice in the previous 36 years. The other 34 years, Ottawa consistently spent more money than it took in.
What does the government do with its surpluses?

It pays down its debt. Since the debt peaked at $562.8 billion in 1996/97, the government has slapped down $61.4 billion on its accumulated debt. As of Oct. 13, 2004, that debt officially stood at just over $501 billion.



. . . . .


The United States has gone from substantial surpluses four years ago to a record deficit of $455 billion this year.

Among G-7 countries, Canada's debt burden moved from second-highest in the mid-1990s to second-lowest in 2003. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts Canada's debt burden will soon be the lowest among G-7 nations.

[DanS]

I think the Heritage Fund was what we discussed a while ago here on Poly. I think I had reservations about a couple of the provisions on how it was run (more of a rainy day fund rather than a long-term stability fund).

But this really deserves its own thread.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by DanS
I think the Heritage Fund was what we discussed a while ago here on Poly. I think I had reservations about a couple of the provisions on how it was run (more of a rainy day fund rather than a long-term stability fund).

But this really deserves its own thread.

True but you asked.

I also don't believe the Heritage fund is the only one that has been established. In the last couple of budgets it seems the Alberta government found a number of different funds to poke some money

[DanS]

Yes, I did ask.

[Zkribbler]

Re: Bush's Fiscal Success

Originally posted by DanS
According to the July deficit figures released by the Treasury, the federal deficit over the last 12 months has been $255 billion. That's a lot of cash, but is only about 2% of the economy, well within manageable levels and historically is reasonably low. The deficit is trending downward.

I'm sure what you meant to say is that the increase in the deficit is trending downwards.

The budget is still nowhere near to being balanced, and so every year, more and more debt is piled into the deficit for future generations to pay off....with interest.


Oh, and one point you overlooked in making your non-recurring expense argument made about the Iraqi war.... While it's true that the military pay to current troops and weapons procurement are not recurring, they also add little if anything back into the economy.
In contrast, if the governement were to use that money and invest it in building roads, dams, or improving education, all these things would more than pay for themselves. Roads increase commerce; dams increase the energy supply and provide water for agriculture; education permits further high-paying employment and high-tech jobs.