By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - $40 billion per month just got added to the bailout cost

HappySqurriel on 12 October 2008
rendo said:

They've been paying down the debt which is better than letting it turn into a larger deficit. The fact of the matter is we continually have had a surplus and are making in roads to bringing the debt down, which is far better than tripling it in 8 years, leaving the mess for future generations to struggle with.

On top of that, the government tends to put surplus money back into the pockets of Canadians.  Do we need it, probably, probably not.  Would it be better used bringing the debt down, for sure.  As long as it's coming down though, that's the key.

I don't disagree, I'm just trying to be fair ...

The other thing that needs to be considered is provincial debt ... Albertans decided in the early 1990s to cut spending, eliminate the deficit, and start paying down our debt; we got (unusually) lucky after (about) 2000 as oil prices skyrocketed and our debt was fully paid down decades ahead of schedule. The Yukon and North West Territories are also debt free, but all other provinces and territories have (fairly) large debts. On top of this, most of the provinces within Canada are still running deficits which means that (as a country) we are really not getting ahead.

 



Around the Network
Sri Lumpa on 12 October 2008
HappySqurriel said:

When the bailout was first announced I watched Glen Beck and he said that $700 Billion was just the starting offer, and with how the Government budgeted things it would end up costing $2 Trillion ... Sadly enough, I think he was right.

I think he is underestimating the final cost by a factor of two or three.



"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"

 

TheRealMafoo on 12 October 2008
NJ5 said:

The $700 billion was probably just a random number they thought up... 

 

No, it's the maximum number the treasury is allowed inject into the economy at one time. If the ceiling was 3 trillion, that's how much they would have asked for.



NJ5 on 12 October 2008
TheRealMafoo said:
NJ5 said:

The $700 billion was probably just a random number they thought up... 

 

No, it's the maximum number the treasury is allowed inject into the economy at one time. If the ceiling was 3 trillion, that's how much they would have asked for.

Thanks for the correction! That actually supports the idea I had though... the $700 billion number is meaningless except as a lower bound. The MSM didn't show much interest in discussing this as far as I've seen.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

akuma587 on 12 October 2008



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
cwbys21 on 12 October 2008

btw, bush would have to spend 5 trillion dollars in a few months to triple the national debt. it was 5 trillion when he came into office, 10 trillion now.



God hates console fanboys.

TheRealMafoo on 12 October 2008
cwbys21 said:
btw, bush would have to spend 5 trillion dollars in a few months to triple the national debt. it was 5 trillion when he came into office, 10 trillion now.

 

Bush can't spend a dime, only congress can. 



rendo on 12 October 2008
cwbys21 said:
btw, bush would have to spend 5 trillion dollars in a few months to triple the national debt. it was 5 trillion when he came into office, 10 trillion now.

He usually has to sign bills and what have you to approve the spending.  Plus you also have to take into consideration the long term plans of some of his Administrations policies, such as the bailout package.  It might only be 700b, it could be 2 or even 3t.  It'll be close to triple in 1-2 years. :)

 



cwbys21 on 12 October 2008

people on page 1 were saying bush this and bush that, that is why I said bush would have to spend 5 trillion dollars. and if we are going to look at long term stuff, why don't we look back and other things like medicare, I don't recall who signed that one into law but that one is going to cost us trillions. should we put that one on him, or the people in power right now?



God hates console fanboys.

TheRealMafoo on 13 October 2008
cwbys21 said:
people on page 1 were saying bush this and bush that, that is why I said bush would have to spend 5 trillion dollars. and if we are going to look at long term stuff, why don't we look back and other things like medicare, I don't recall who signed that one into law but that one is going to cost us trillions. should we put that one on him, or the people in power right now?

 

Well, the president was Johnson, but I am one to blame congress for these problems far more then I am the president. Yes, Presidents have plans, but they are just recommendations that Congress must pass.

Congress can always (and usually should) say no to these plans.