Group items tagged

Government spending cannot continue to increase especially when it is financed by debt. The recession was started by economies overloaded with debt. Rather than deal with the imbalances government decided to increase spending "grow the economy" and create more debt. Now we are in a predicament that there are no tools left for governments to throw at the economic problems.

Canada's net debt had grown to $582 billion, up from $516 billion two years earlier.

The government's attempt to continue economic growth by borrowing has failed. Canada's economy is going nowhere and we are farther behind because of government debt. The future does not look much better for Canada's economy.

government borrowing huge amounts of money to bolster the economy

We are beginning to see the positive results collaboration can bring, including significant savings to protect vital services and ensure our communities invest in innovation and education to create jobs and keep the region competitive in the global economy."

he rate of local government spending in Northeast Ohio is 70 times the region's population growth, 2.8 times its inflation rate and 2.4 times its economic output

government entities spend $20 billion to operate

ortheast Ohio residents have made it clear that more efficient local government is a regional priorit

collaboration of 100 foundations, organizations and philanthropists from across Northeast Ohio

reducing the size of government, forcing unions to compete for government contracts and reducing red tape on business

introduce forced manual labour for prisoners.

make it illegal to raise taxes without a clear mandate

One of the first items on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s agenda when Parliament returns will be reintroduction of a $278 billion budget that includes a sprinkling of social and economic spending and a plan to slay the budget deficit in several years. And the government will continue with a $6 billion corporate income tax cut.

“The risks still lie outside the Canadian border, which as we’re well aware can have a spillover effect on Canada,” said Royal Bank chief economist Craig Wright.

“We’re seeing continued uncertainty and concerns still with respect to the Eurozone and where it’s headed,” he said. Uncertainty on economic growth is also being fanned by volatile energy markets and the questionable U.S. business rebound, Wright said.

Prospects for Canada are also complicated by expectations that spending by debt-burdened consumers could slow in 2011 and by the shut-off of the Conservatives’ two-year, $47 billion emergency stimulus program.

With government spending slowing, the Conservatives have staked a great deal on their view that the business community will pick up the slack and stimulate the economy with expansion-minded investments.

Besides phasing in corporate income tax cuts worth $14 billion by 2012, the Conservatives in recent years have provided a wide range of investment incentives for business, including easing taxes on small business and manufacturers. In all, tax cuts for business by the Conservatives total an estimated $60 billion by 2013.

both Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney have pointedly talked about the urgent need for more spending on machinery and equipment by companies.

But many are not convinced, with some Canadians saying the government would be smarter to tie tax incentives directly to company investments to ensure that corporations don’t just pocket the extra profits.

Speaking of corporate tax cuts, Canadian Association of Social Workers spokesperson Fred Phelps said it would be one thing “if corporations turned around and invested those funds into the economy.” But he said that hasn’t been happening in recent years. “What really has driven us out of the recession,” he said, “is spending by households and government, not business.”

"Jobs and growth will remain our government's top priority," Johnston said.

"In order to accelerate the return to a balanced budget and to eliminate the deficit one year earlier, over the next year we will undertake a strategic and operating review of government spending," he said.

"Our government's plan will put us on a strong footing to resume paying down the federal debt, further reduce taxes on families and continue investing in priorities."

We will not give in to Opposition demands to impose

This reckless policy would lead to continuing deficits and higher taxes on all Canadians. It would stall our recovery, kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and set families back.

We need to keep protecting and creating jobs now

Keeping taxes low A key part of that foundation is low taxes.

Our tax cuts are also helping employers to invest, grow and create jobs.

Our government will take further action to encourage them to expand and create jobs.

The Hiring Credit for Small Business will provide a one-year EI break for some 525,000 Canadian small businesses

Expanding international trade Beyond this, we will promote new export opportunities for all Canadian businesses

We will provide greater financial security for Canadians, and practical help to make ends meet.

Indeed, the gap between richer and poorer regions is likely to widen in many countries as the public-spending axe falls. Nowhere will this effect be more striking than in Britain. Cities in the north and Wales are much more dependent on public-sector jobs and welfare benefits than cities in the south.

o get my vote on the debt ceiling..Medicare will be a part of it

argued against using $80 billion in taxpayer dollars to try to save General Motors Co., Chrysler and many of their suppliers."

economists largely predicted the U.S. recovery would ramp back up as short-term disruptions such as higher gas prices, bad weather and supply problems in Japan subsided

he ownership rate is now back to the level of 1998, and some housing experts say it could decline to the level of the 1980s or even earlier

Cutting tax breaks for retirement won't raise a lot of money;

economy

medical school free

the share of mortgage in arrears 90 days or more continued to climb through 2011.

House of Commons committee on poverty released a report proposing a guaranteed basic income for Canadians with disabilities, on the model already available to seniors. The Senate released a similar report this spring calling for a study of how it would work for all low-income Canadians.

Within a year, working with counsellors who helped them with their plans and purchases, nine of the 15 participants were moving to some form of housing. The results were not perfect: A couple of people moved back out of housing again, and at least one was imprisoned. But most spent far less than the money available to them, mostly on clothing, food and rent. On the other hand, one person who chose to remain on the street asked for music lessons, and that was all right too.

Economists continue to bounce the idea around. Two years ago, Canadian researchers started their own chapter of the Basic Income Earth Network (a group founded in Belgium in 1986) to co-ordinate an ongoing discussion. Some say it might actually accomplish what political rhetoric has been promising for years: the eradication of poverty.

In Britain, an experiment was recently conducted with a small group of people who had been living on the streets for more than five years. They were given a budget that they could spend however they wished. The idea was to see whether the “personalized budgets” Britain gives to seniors and people with disabilities to pay for care (which include some conditions) would work for the very poor as well.

In Quebec, a government task force went further, recommending a minimum guaranteed income starting at $12,000 for everyone in the province.

The idea of a guaranteed annual income has been tested before in Canada – in the mid-1970s, in Dauphin, Man., a farming town with then about 10,000 residents. In the only experiment of its kind in North America, every household in Dauphin was given access to a guaranteed annual budget, subject to their income level. For a family of five, payments equalled about $18,000 a year in today's dollars. Politicians primarily wanted to see if people would stop working. While the project was pre-empted by a change in government, a second look by researchers has found that there was only a slight decline in work – mostly among mothers, who chose to stay home with their children, and teenaged boys, who stayed in school longer.

“Very often, services are about getting people off the streets, come what may,” says Joe Batty, who managed the program. “This is about normalizing people.” The program was considered so successful, he says, that the city of London is now providing financial support to expand it.

Evelyn Forget, a researcher in medicine at the University of Manitoba, reports that Dauphin also experienced a 10-per-cent drop in hospital admissions and fewer doctor visits, especially for mental-health issues.

But a guaranteed-annual-income program would be expensive. In developing nations, a small amount of money can bring about big changes. In a country like Canada, the basic income needed to pull everyone out of poverty would have to be larger, balanced against higher taxes.

cost analysis of the Quebec proposal estimated it could run the province as much as $2-billion, including the cost in lost taxes if minimum-wage workers did the math and left those jobs.

Other experts argue that poverty reduction needs to be tailored to individual circumstances, especially in cases involving mental health and addiction.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, one of the more vocal proponents of no-strings-attached aid for the poor, points out that the guaranteed-income program for seniors has greatly reduced poverty, especially among women. “There's a bias that when given the chance people will be lazy,” he says. “That's not my sense of reality.” Mr. Segal argues that giving money with no conditions removes the stigma and shame around poverty, allowing people to focus instead on how to improve their lot.

Requiring the poor to prove continually that they are deserving of assistance or threatening to pull help away without notice only discourages the risk-taking and confidence required to get out of poverty.

“If you think of the core premise of charity, it is not to treat people as lesser,” Mr. Segal says. “[It] is to give people a leg-up so they can have some measure of independence and can make some of their own choices.”

To do that effectively, he argues, we need to let them decide the steps they take to get there. Or – as Ms. Gray in Victoria puts it, saying she would go back to school for more training if she could count on covering rent and daycare – give some autonomy back to “people who are trying to be somebody in this world.”