HistoryBuff44
-
Posts
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by HistoryBuff44
-
-
How about the federal incentives for businesses to locate in that province ?
I think it curious that in general we never get any information about how they would manage their finances as an independent state. All we hear is how it would be great for Quebec. um, how? overburdened with debt and deficit spending as well as having to deal with the relocation of businesses outside of your province because they don't want to deal with your socialist bureaucracy. it would be great for about 2 years after that the reality of the situation would kick in.
the worst part about all the talk is that it doesn't illustrate the side that wants to stay. they lost the vote 2 times, which means a bigger part wants to remain. the PQ leadership simply ignore the results as if it didn't happen; laughable since they are the reason the vote happened in the first place. The part of the province that wants to stay need to speak up and let the others know they are sick of their banter. Unfortunately, the PQ are the only ones doing the talking in Quebec. The pro-Canada side needs to tell them if they want to leave Canada so bad then pack their stuff and go. That Quebec is a part of Canada which despite our issues is one of if not the greatest nation on the planet.
-
and what do SAMs use for targetting?
Why can't this be avoided with the new plane.
I think you have misunderstood what i was writing. SAMs use radar or heat signatures for homing in on its target. Radar missiles are partially avoided by stealth (reduced radar signature). Missiles using heat sources (like the hot exhaust out of a jet) to home in on can be sent off course by dropping super hot burning flares from the jet
and what technologies allow that?stealth characteristics (reduced radar signature) by radar energy absorbing coatings and a design that reduces the ability of radar to get bounced back energy waves.
Yet a half ton plane could probably just glide home if it floated, like a hot air balloon.Apparently this is what some old british aircraft did - they just kept on flying even without even the pilot.
A fighter jet might be able to fly home and land on autopilot... but it cannot do it without an engine and thats what i spoke of in my comment. at best you might get a 3:1 ratio of forward movement to altitude loss out of it.
-
Build the ancient A10 on license, and the price of the AC130 is inflated as well. Hell we could do our own version if we wanted to. The problem is we have no political will to do anything at all. No risk, no reward, we know fear and little else.
I think a big issue is being missed here. The issue with the older birds is that they are too easily spotted by current hand held and mobile SAMs. The reach and power of those systems would blot those jets out of the sky too easily. The newer Jets have a much reduced radar signature so that enemy forces cannot engage them so far out. thus allowing our guys to get in close enough with HARMs and other weapons to deal the first blows.
Part of the question with these jets is what does the future tactics call for. Do you really need jets to deliver the weapons in the future? There are railgun style weapons in development now that will shoot projectiles hundreds of miles and speeds of mach 5+ and use GPS guidance.
Personally, i think some new jets are needed as the next generation tactics are still too far out; but they are coming no question. One issue with the f35 that i dont like is that it is a single engine craft. twin engine units allow the pilot to get home if one engine quits on mechanical failure when he's patrolling up north a 1000 miles from base.
-
Yes, CAW does say, and think, that it's 'just a negotiation', but I figure they've fatally misread the situation.
But, Historybuff... some investments pay back handsomely, and the auto industry is one that has done so.
Molly, there will always be an auto industry, its just a question of who is it. if GM or Chrysler falls, other will step in buy up the pieces and continue on. so long as people demand vehicles there will be companies to supply them. Therein lay the fundamental argument, you dont build something and then try to create a market for it, you spot the demand and build something for it. As soon as you remove the true nature of what competition does for us, you reduce quality and allow prices to be higher than need be. So if other companies can do it profitably, why should we support those who can't seem to?
-
Ottawa is prepared to let Canada's two financially troubled car makers collapse rather than provide long-term financing to companies without a viable future, Industry Minister Tony Clement said Thursday as he ratcheted up the pressure on the Canadian Auto Workers union to negotiate new deals to slash wages and benefits.
It's just posturing ... bargaining.
I heard from the union today that GM in Canada has always been profitable. Workers' wages are a non-issue. It's just negotiation.
i would take anything the union says with a grain of salt... or a pound of it. Can GM Canada survive if GM goes under? GM has lost 84 billion over the last few years according to the independant audit ordered by the US government. thats what scared the obama administration from giving them the last 16 billion they requested.
-
And as a result, tens of billions of dollars in lost income tax. It may cost the federal treasury significantly more to let them fail.
Yes they lose money from lost income tax, but is that lost tax more than they pay out to the company to keep it running? unless it is the case, its an inefficent use of resources.
I dont believe it is because if you follow that logic through to the end, it would make sense for a government to spend forever to earn even more back.
-
First, I am glad that the government is saying they will let them fall. For sure it sucks for those who could lose jobs but the government needs to think at a macro level. how is it fair to the country to prop up those failing businesses and not all the other industries failing as well. not to mention how is it fair to taxpayers to get saddled with debt from companies that were failing in some of the best economic times in the last 30 years.
I do find it funny though that ol' GW said they should be helped and we pumped money into them. Then Obama, after the audit that scared most, says no to their next request and then we again follow suit. while i like the direction were going, you definately cant say we are leading the pack...
-
Until there is a sure way to prevent people from brining handguns into the country the concept of the registry and what they hope to prevent by creating it won't work. I'm not a policeman or criminologist but im pretty sure people who want to kill someone arent going to register their weapons.
it really is that simple.
-
If its made in Canada and Not Union made, your ok with it? That would be roughly 74% of the Industrial Workplaces.
I guess our government should ditch those crackberries.
Im ok with it if the same thing cant be purchased for a better price and similar or better quality elsewhere. I dont care if its Union made or not, just if the price is higher because of union labor costs are high by comparison to other potential candidates. The same goes for non union items as well.
-
We need unions and good union jobs. They are already making concessions. They are not a liability to prosperity, but an asset. Good wage earners spend, they pay high income tax rates and do not impose a drain on social services. Pull out all the union jobs and watch our treasury evaporate. This really would create an economic social Darwinism.
And no I'm not a Godless Socialist. Just a realist.
No we dont need them. You say your a realist, if that were true you would know that they are only now making concessions because of the REALITY that they would all be out of a job because the companies they work for will be bankrupt and out of business.
those companies would still need and use workers whether they were unionized or not, yes they would probably earn less money but then i completely disagree with the wages they make. there have been lots of articles lately stating the average amounts they make, its rediculous for what they need to do.
-
This law would not or could not force everyone to buy their stuff. Where do you get that from? Oh you made up great. This law would make so the government of Canada would buy from with in Canada where are workers and the people who pay taxes are. Don't be angry because the Unions say it should be done. Don't be blinded by your hate for organized labour this would benefit all Canadians. The union speech is a whole different discussion.
Im not blinded by hatred of unions... you made that up. I see what these unions have done plain as day and i dont believe it is beneficial to canadians at all. driving up wages is not beneficial, making it virtually impossible to fire useless people or people that simply arent needed at a position is not beneficial. I expect the government of canada to get the best value for my tax dollar, not piss it away on some union wage driven up project that will cost more just because its made here in canada, so that they need to tax me more for more money because they bought here.
-
what a hypocritical load of garbage from these union heads. They spent the last 20 years driving up wages to rediculous levels and then they try to force everyone to buy canadian? why so they can drive wages up even higher? they have done as much to destroy manufacturing as any government has done in this country. there is no place for unions in today's Canada, they are far more of a liability to prosperity than an asset.
PS did you notice in the pic from G&M the one union head wearing that nice gold watch... must be hurtin times.
-
And how precisely are we going to maintain sovereignty over a waterway that we've pretty much never asserted anything other than nominal sovereignty before?
we cant back down. The US is deliberately trying to play down our claims and brush us aside. The thing to remember is its not personal, its politics; its all give and take. we cant back down on this, they're not going to invade us over it because we sell to them anyway. so let them know we wont get brushed aside and bargain for something we want, joint northern action, rights elsewhere, whatever we deem we need.
-
Obama is about to wipe out Canada's perceived wealth over his presidential term. He is fully prepared to run trillion dollar deficits and he will then be more than happy to buy Canada's oil with his printed money all the while Canada's dollar will still be traded lower than the US dollar. Holy Batman talk about raping and plundering Canada.
All Canada can do is be the stupid Country it is but with the Conservatives at the Helm need I say more.
For Every Dollar the US prints Canada is to print the money proportionally. That is the only way all things will be equal. That means if Obama injects a trillion, Canada injects 100 Billion being that we have 1/10th the population.
Not doing this will ultimately be to Canada's detrimant. Of Course if Canada were to do this it would go to Useless Banks, Useless Government workers, and special interest groups which provide no intellectual value to Canada.
Because of this Canada will continue to slip behind the world as China, India, Europe and the United States will leave Canada in its dust.
The reality is Canada doesn't have what it takes to be a good productive contributing Country to the world picture. All Canada has is elitists money whores who Jack up their incomes and exploit everyone around them. That is the Canada the conservatives built.
Not worry money whores Obama is about to make your money worthless.
if nations would stop trying to control exchange rates and just let the market handle it then a good portion of this trade imbalance problem would not have come about.
it is a rediculous myth that canada's currency should be worth 20% less than america's and I do agree that trying to keep it there would wreck us, so why do it?
how are rich people expoiting everyone around them? seriously its like people get mad at successful people because they are successful... but thats socialists for ya, equal results for all no matter how much effort you put in. And then they sit and wonder why canada cant compete with the more productive countries.
-
The greatest con perpetrated on people is the dogma that tax cuts help the economy. It ranks right up there with the magic of blanket deregulation. Such a tax notion is so simplistic as to be pure nonsense. Moreover, there are no examples--let me repeat "no examples"--of tax cuts, as they are preached by simplistic conservatives, helping an economy. Taxation is a complex area of public policy that requires research, care, and thoughtfulness. Somethings that the preachers of the tax cut dogma never invoke. Did the Conservatives reduction in the GST help the economy? No! Is ti contributing to putting Canada into a deficit? Yes.
So, before you preach tax cuts, present the empirical evidence for your belief. Or admit that you have nothing to support your position except--religion-like--faith.
Then why in my economics classes did they teach that govt tax policy can advance or retard an economy almost as effectively as central bank rate changes?
How in gods name is it better to give money to an industry, dying because people dont want their products, so they can produce products that arent selling than to give it to people so they can spend it on stuff they actually want, or use it to pay down debt thus giving money to financial institutions shoring up their balance sheets and freeing up more credit?
The hypocrasy in your statement is awesome, you slam one side as having no evidence to support it and then refute it offering no evidence to the contrary... nicely done.
-
I find this a frustrating topic, I realize the job loss potential here but at the same time as the article talks about 3.4 billion for 110,000 jobs. thats about what 33K per person.
Seems hard to ask people earning less than what those union people make to anti up for them when they refuse to take pay cuts.
Same goes for the companies, hopefully they use the money to actually try and build better vehicles than the japanese and Germans are making instead of using it to lobby the governments to lower emmission restrictions and such.
Still, its gotta be tough for an industry that takes years to design and build a vehicle to react to fuel prices that fluctuate like this. But the other auto makers dont seem to have this issue as much.
-
Ya, just another admission that the coalition was too fragile, sounds like Ignatieff never liked it and started opposing it on the weekend.
-
And what is this "PROBLEM"?
I think one problem is that the most basic fundamental of democracy is missing in Canada, proper representation in ottawa. last i read there were many seats that should be shifted from the east to the west.
-
Let me start by saying that I'm new to this forum, but by know means new to prognosticating on all things political. I would be greatful if you could please explain how 37% constitutes almost a majority? I would also like to know if anybody else here is of the same mind as I, when I say that perhaps the conservatives pander to the uneducated, ignorant, masses when using fear mongering in order to push through 'reform' style legislation? Is it not a fact that the majority of the seats held by Harper's conservatives are rural seats? Do we as a country want these ridings cramming their extremist religious ideology down our throats? Furthermore is it not fact that this proroging tactic is not dis-similar to tactics emplyed by fascist regimes throughout history?
wow.. where to begin. about the "almost a majority", the statement is referring to the fact that the cons are a few seats short of a majority. as for the population, statistics is how we can infer that roughly the same result would have occured had 100% of the population voted. for those who i know will remark on this i say again roughly. thats how statistics works.
as for the last statement... did you honestly just compare the quiet rural areas of the west to fascist germany??? give your head a shake.... wow.
-
Are you surprised?
Of course, ordinary people are ignorant or easily influenced by money. Democracy is a good idea as long as rich people can't influence the ignorant masses - the masses need to know their interests.
I love how so many people come on here and start bashing people who vote different than they about how dumb, gullable and average they are. i dont recall reading how you have cured cancer or solved world hunger or anything remotely close that would classify you as extraordinary. pretty sure that makes you ordinary, just like me. I am mostly informed, so are most people, they are allowed to vote their conscience same as you. why is your view so much more correct than theirs or mine?
I happen to think, as i did from the start of it, that the coalition was a rookie move. it was too soon from when canadians almost gave the cons a majority, it doesnt take a genious to realise people will be pissed about having their decisions overturned. everyone knows the pace of government makes a snail look like a jack rabbit, 5 weeks simply wasnt enough time to give the government a chance. this doesnt make people stupid or dumb, it makes them canadian.
-
But then what your saying means you don't think what I said is true. As a liberal minded person, I prefer to not have people in one province suffering while people in another have more than they know what to do with. Mind you, I have no problem with the second one, provided the first one doesn't exist.
not necessarily, you said "were all canadians and we all help each other". im not disagreeing with that, but ask me to help dont tell me i must help. my wife tells me im a workaholic, i admit it i am because i choose to be. If i choose to make that sacrifice, why should i be forced to give my money to someone who chooses not to be? who chooses to work less and thus earn less, why should they be given my money, it destroys the incentive for me to work hard if its taken from me.
just so were clear i have no wish to see the country broken up and I beleive the equalization program is fundamentally flawed.
but, i suppose, therein lay the difference between a conservative and a liberal, a conservative wants equal opportunity, a liberal wants equal results.
-
Doesn't really matter though, we're all Canadians, we all live in this country together, and we all help each other in times of need.
true, just, as a conservative person, i would like to do it by choice, rather than being told i must by socialists.
-
Ok...so
Ontario contributing $11B with 12,891,787 people = 853.26 per person.
Alberta contributing $11B (2003 figure) with 3,512,368 people = 3131.79 per person.
"From 1961 to 2002 (the most recent year for which Statistics Canada data is available), Alberta made a total net fiscal contribution to the federal government of $244 billion, compared with $315 billion for Ontario and $54 billion for B.C.
By far the largest fiscal transfers in Canadian history occurred through the national energy policies in the 1970s and 1980s, when the net transfers from Alberta alone associated with regulated energy prices amounted to $79 billion."
http://www.ucalgary.ca/oncampus/weekly/nov...berta-pays.html
======
Don't anyone DARE try to equate Ontario's contributions to Alberta's. Ontario has had the lap of luxury when it comes to many things Canadiana. Sure, Alberta collected equalization for a couple years way back when...but we have more than paid it back....been screwed over several times in the past.
We now have massive taxation without representation...
TIME FOR ALBERTA TO CUT IT'S LOSSES AND GET THE F*** OUT!!
you should put quebecs numbers in for comparison... they paint a great picture.
-
Is there majority support for separation? If Canada is divisible, is Alberta divisible?
If a clear majority doesn't support separation, will the minority attack those opposed to separation?
is that not what block supporters are doing in quebec now? they are not a majority.
Conservative Majority
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I have seen several people make comments about the building of new prisons and complaining about increasing criminal population. My first thought is well, where do we put them if not in prisons? building a prison does not make more criminals, people do that on their own. letting criminals out too early cause they have no room for them doesn't mean they are done being a criminal. so please tell me what do we do with them? just not arrest them cause we have no room for them?