# Does government have a spending problem?



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

It is often said that government has a spending problem. Does it?


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Of course it does but it has a lot of political problems and pressure to deal with in order to get it under control beyond the usual amount of waste all budgets have.

I believe back in 2009 the conservatives wanted to hold the line on spending but the opposition wouldn't allow it. A minority government made it impossible to do the right thing. Today they have a majority but will still have trouble doing what needs to be done because it is hard to do and still get elected the next time around.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Good points dogcom. Though Mike Harris did get elected to a second term after he slashed and burned. So did the fed Libs in the '90s. Right now not much is happening because we're in the summer and everyone is at the cottage but once the MPs get back to work and start passing legislation, we'll see how this plays out. Remember the economy is very fragile right now and the gov't doesn't want to make things worse right now. They need to be a bit careful. Harris did his bit when the economy was strong and people were working and paying taxes etc.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

dogcom said:


> Of course it does but it has a lot of political problems and pressure to deal with in order to get it under control beyond the usual amount of waste all budgets have.
> 
> I believe back in 2009 the conservatives wanted to hold the line on spending but the opposition wouldn't allow it. A minority government made it impossible to do the right thing. Today they have a majority but will still have trouble doing what needs to be done because it is hard to do and still get elected the next time around.


I really hope you're not going to use the opposition as an excuse for their lack of action, now.

The opposition was twisting a rubber arm when it came to the stimulus spending. The Conservatives were all too happy to spend that money. It sealed their majority.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

No, it's very good at it.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Actually the real problem is; the voter has a spending problem. The majority of the votes pay a minority of the costs. Sooooo .... why not spend, spend, spend or in our democratic case, why not elect someone who will spend, spend, spend.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Spending problem, revenue problem ... these are two halves of the same thing! If the government had much, much more revenue, the present spending levels would not be a problem. Deficit spending, for extended periods, is not responsible, and I question its sustainablility. It just feels like we are digging a deeper hole. Deficit spending in times of emergencies such as war is understandable, but it feels that it is the norm now.


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

dogcom said:


> I believe back in 2009 the conservatives wanted to hold the line on spending but the opposition wouldn't allow it.



This was after they blew the surplus they inherited from the previous gov't, right?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

No......the government has a revenue problem.

They have a problem collecting a fair share of taxes from business and the wealthy, because they created a tax code so complicated that cheating is considered a national pastime for those who can afford the high priced help.

The right wing, trickle down, cut taxes and the economy will thrive doctrine has never been successful anywhere. British PM Thatcher tried it and almost bankrupted the UK. Reagan tried it and the US debt increased. Ireland was the latest showcase for the dogma......and it was left a basket case.

There is no successful formula for a country or business to downsize to success.

If they don't grow...........they fail.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Actually the real problem is; the voter has a spending problem. The majority of the votes pay a minority of the costs. Sooooo .... why not spend, spend, spend or in our democratic case, why not elect someone who will spend, spend, spend.


Totally agree. Most people want more and more programs, and general those who want more programs are not the ones neccessarily paying the porportion of the costs. Many people lobby or make demands without understand the impacts it has. The polictians are supposed to represent the people, and isn't it true that the majority of the people are not fiscally responsible?


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

It will always be a spending problem. The government can always opt to raise revenues by increasing taxes to cover their expenses..This might make them lose favour and get voted out but it would be the responsible thing to do instead of creating debt by planning on spending more then what you are taking in year after year..... Nothing the government does is going to appeal to everyone


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

It doesn't need to appeal to everyone, but to those who go out to the polls. It's a catch 22. 

Even if they are doing the responsible thing, if they don't have the citizen support, it wont get very far, as they'll be voted out. I have found that most people really don't understand the implications of what they may be asking for. However, for them to be educated in the situation, it would take alot more money to educate them enough to vote logically. 

I don't even know what the answer is.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

OptsyEagle nailed it and that is why the opposition won the day when they pressed the conservatives to spend, spend, spend. Andrewf if you were right about what you say about taxes then BC and probably Ontario would be stinking rich and Alberta would be very poor and in extreme debt.

BC has a great advantage over Alberta with a coast Alberta needs and all sorts of natural recourses. Also we are the gateway to Asia. Looking at how this experiment has gone unfortunately Andrewf and others you have lost big time.


----------



## Argonaut (Dec 7, 2010)

sags said:


> The right wing, trickle down, cut taxes and the economy will thrive doctrine has never been successful anywhere.


Okay there, comrade. We may be forgetting the great 19th century and the industrial revolution. Capitalists, railroads, the rise of the British Empire and United States, wild west, gold rush.. it gets me excited just thinking about it! And Reagan has been the only good president in almost 50 years.



dogcom said:


> Andrewf if you were right about what you say about taxes then BC and probably Ontario would be stinking rich and Alberta would be very poor and in extreme debt.


Agree!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If you exclude oil, Alberta is not in good shape. Otherwise, you can't compare them. Remember that despite Alberta's torrent of oil and gas royalties, they were running a deficit. 

Also, Ontario and BC just implemented these tax changes. Before the changes in Ontario, our tax policy was pretty disastrous. This stuff doesn't correct overnight--you need to allow time for investment and capital accumulation.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Reagan was a great president and he raised taxes, so raising taxes is a good thing, right Argo? Got it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

"BC has a great advantage over Alberta with a coast Alberta needs and all sorts of natural recourses. Also we are the gateway to Asia. Looking at how this experiment has gone unfortunately Andrewf and others you have lost big time. "

Does Alberta need a gateway to Asia? They just got a big gateway to the US approved.

I'm not sure what experiment you're talking about. In general, tax policy is moving in the right direction. Tax reformers may have lost the battle on HST in BC, but they are winning the war. Twenty years ago there were not value added taxes in Canada. Now retail sales taxes have nearly been entirely replaced with VATs. Corporate taxes have been drastically lowered. Capital taxes eliminated. Tariff barriers lowered. BC even implemented a carbon tax. It's all good news. It's a shame the HST in BC, and a national carbon tax, were mishandled. But tax reform marches on. All we need to do is drown out the know-nothings who don't understand how taxation affects the economy. It helps that they're coming from the untenable position that all government spending is waste and taxes should go to zero (ie, the Somalia model). Holding unreasonable positions is the surest way to marginalize oneself.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> If you exclude oil, Alberta is not in good shape. Otherwise, you can't compare them. Remember that despite Alberta's torrent of oil and gas royalties, they were running a deficit.


The Province is running a deficit now, but only because of the way way they structured they latest change in royalty payments and the Province's heavy reliance on natural gas revenues and current lows in nat gas prices.

Alberta certainly IS a perfect example of poor government actions though, rather than saving up some of the proceeds during the fat years of the early 2000's (weird to write that), wonderful decisions like giving money back to citizens have led us back to deficits.

I don't understand the notion that our Province 'depends' on BC. Certainly individual companies that operate in BC (I'm thinking of the developments in Kitimat by Enbridge, Kinder Morgan's expansion plans, CNR's plans to move oil by rail to Asia etc) will pay royalties to BC, but how is that affecting Alberta's government?

Only Enbridge is based in Alberta, and taxes paid to BC mean fewer paid to Alberta, but the other Co's don't constitute our government.

Unless our government is subsidizing capital projects in BC, I don't agree with your point whatsoever. But then again, a government who has been in power for 40 years, they could be doing something this stupid.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

From what I know sampson whenever the longshoreman go on strike the Alberta government is on the phone pleading them to get back to work.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

That's everyone, though. But BC doesn't have the only port, just the most convenient/cost effective one.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

andrewf said:


> One's.


I suppose dogcom should actually be lobbying for a port in Richmond, so that the city could derive revenues from the Government of Alberta and not from local citizens.

Keep taxes low, bring the crude through on it's way to Asia.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

No I wouldn't want that. It is the old saying of put it in the backyard of somebody else. 

I suppose if push came to shove you could ship it through Seattle and bypass BC altogether.


----------



## kid5022 (Nov 14, 2010)

depending on your definition of problem... but the government is in no position of any problem(S) in spending.

They could just print money and spend them (inflation), the only problem is that no one would want their money... and that is not happening right now. I am pretty sure they have no problem spending the money either. 

The only problem is the people, stuck with all the inflation


----------

