HistoryBuff44

i agree on the cradle to grave welfare problem. and the thing is its not even how much more money we through at things like health care, but the fact that the system is so inefficient and the politicians think the answer is to keep throwing more money into it and the problem will solve itself.

Just thought id throw a quick comparison out there. A couple quick facts: Canada is roughly 1/9 the population of the US. Our economies are quite similar in that we both have roughly 65% employed in services and 25% in manufacturing. Now just today Bush tabled a budget (though it most likely wont get passed) of 2.9 trillion, with 624 billion going to the pentagon. If you were to compare that to Canada we would have a budget of 321 billion in spending with roughly 69 billion going to the military. Our last budget had a total spending of 212 billion, taken to the US level it would be 1.908 trillion. That difference seems staggering to me. Sorta brings into perspective our arguing about increases in spending and taxes. Americans sooner or later are going to have to get used to the idea of tax increases. I figure it makes canada look like a pretty good place to be right now. It is said that in the end 50% of our money goes to the government in one form of tax or another. I wonder the rate is for the US?? Any comments ladies and gents?

banks normally dont create money, when they do inflation runs rampant. (germany 1923) commercial banks just try to make money and central banks try to control inflation using interest rates to control the money supply. you are right though, the money comes from us taxpayers. but in understanding macro-economics you realize the money in an economy is cyclical, it goes from employer to employee to bank and starts over again. keeping the money here sends it round and round earning us all more in the form of new jobs and higher wages. If you remove that money from the cycle then that cycle slows down. (eg US buying 800 Billion a year from china... not a good thing from the US perspective, that spending has to be financed somewhere. that is a lot of money leaving the US cycle and entering chinas). letting the market set prices is supposed to determine the most efficient production of goods, but all to often governments interfere with that process and it distorts the system.

Any plan for action on the climate needs to include china, india and nations like brazil as well. Personally i think that emissions trading scheme is rediculous. How does it help us to lower our emissions if we give the money, that should be used to accomplish that task, to other nations? Glenn Beck (CNN headline news at 7 MT) had a guy on his program that said right now between china and india there is a new coal power plant coming online every 3 days!!

Some Manitobans think they should be built in Manitoba.I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good. Final Assembly for aircraft this large is not done in canada. remember C 17 globemaster is a large aircraft, I suppose some stuff like avionics or landing gear and such will be done here, but it all is shipped to the large assembly hangers in the states. Part of the cost is a 20 year maintenance contract i beleive. And we do need to be able to resupply ourselves, right now we lease russian or american aircraft to airlift large cargo. And renting aircraft costs us less than buying our own. Now why do we need cheaper planes from China when the most cost-effective option is to rent planes when needed and let others take care of the maintenance and risk involved? therein is the problem Saturn, many times when we have needed to rent them there were none available to rent. America and Russia are the only two nations that have the capacity to rent out their airlift units, unfortunately many times russia's aircraft are in dissrepair and cannot be used. and america's units seem to be fairly busy lately... In fact thats why the idea of purchasing those aircraft was put in motion in the first place. E.G. when DART tried to respond in Dec 04 (tsunami) part of the delay was trying to get it over there, that delay meant more lives lost. Also determining which one is cheaper is a function of how much they are needed. only time will tell us that.

Likewise, it only takes one situation where 5 are needed and only 4 were bought. You can't win sometimes. As far as the price goes, we won't know if we got a good deal until the auditor goes over it. And don't forget costs overruns. The Tories have already shown a precedent for not penalizing companies for delays. I agree, there will always be a situation that arises which will incur (sp) the wrath of the dogs just waiting for something to bite at.

sounds like kingston On. Not really sure why 4, maybe they got a deal from Boeing if they got 4 or maybe that was the number that our military came up with.

We'll have to see. It would be good to have farmers get a break but somehow they always get the pointy end of the stick. We'll get it on inputs, oh well in keeping with the thread, they'll also be making money. In my view ag is in a sort of renaissance right now. The economic possibities are there for a profitable industry. The ethanol push will be the demand booster that is needed for canadian ag, althought the australian drought has pushed prices up lately. Now if we can only get the US and EU to drop those subsidies...

Manitoba does much of the work you describe. There used to be a Boeing plant in Ontario but it was sold in 2005. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2005...nr_050803g.html Yes, exactly, it says in that article that the plant did some sub- assembly and sheet metal work.

If ever a real hotspot or emergency occured it would take far too long for just one to resupply or reinforce. Of course the argument could be made then that 4 isnt enough either... each one has roughly 130,000 pound payload, with 4 you can get a pretty steady stream of supplies moving.

Manitoba does much of the work you describe. It would be great to see sub contracts all over canada. In fact I think it was part of the negotiated contract with Boeing that some of the work be done here.

Some Manitobans think they should be built in Manitoba.I say build them in China if it's cheaper and the quality is good. Final Assembly for aircraft this large is not done in canada. remember C 17 globemaster is a large aircraft, I suppose some stuff like avionics or landing gear and such will be done here, but it all is shipped to the large assembly hangers in the states. Part of the cost is a 20 year maintenance contract i beleive. And we do need to be able to resupply ourselves, right now we lease russian or american aircraft to airlift large cargo.

I was glad to see that the muslim community here reacted more appropriately. I honestly thought it amazing to see the banners calling for people to be butchered and, once again, America to be destroyed... after Denmark that is. Just my opinion but it seems that you would be taken far more seriously by acting in a calm manner and calling for the authorities to investigate as compared to declaring that people should be killed over a cartoon. I think Harper had the only real response he could give, sorta right down the middle.

I hope that Harper is able to make the government more accountable as he is promising because things like the registry just make me shake my head. that useless thing had no hope of preventing gun crime, and if they had asked anyone who has a clue they would have known that. that was a huge waste of money and the government should not be allowed to just start something like that without doing the proper research. Like the saying goes "Guns dont kill people, people kill people." Course it was all just a stunt by Jean Chretien anyway to keep Canadians attention focus away from something else that was going on...

It would seem that the players on both sides of the border are trying to be the victim and shooting back comments in attempts to reflect that stance. Martin sure has tried to play this up though, acting like david trying to fight off Goliath. If through the democratic process Canada determines it is being unlawfully hurt by US action as set forth the by rules of NAFTA, if my understanding is correct NAFTA rulings are supposed to carry the weight of law in North America, then it take appropriate action. Martin talking the talk and not walking the walk speaks more to electioneering than an actual resolution to the issue. The US reducing their trade status with Canada would not be in their best interests just as Martin losing his cool would not be in ours, its a mutually beneficial situation we have. True right now canada is looking pretty good, commodity prices are high and the jobs sector is booming, but that hasnt always been the case. Its Important to remember that part of Martins plan is to do what is necessary to keep the headlines away from the scandal.

I find it very interesting that the US talked so much about giving Iraq back to the people and letting Iraqies be free to determine their own destinies under a democratic nation, and yet so many oil contracts (Oil being the biggest money earning commodity in the country) were handed out before the Iraqies were able to determine what they wanted to do with "their" wealth. I agree that the royalties will still be paid to the government, but if owning the rights to the oil wasnt worth a lot more than said royalties, oil companies wouldnt be so rich. What an interesting turn of events it would be if the Iraq Supreme Court (Apologies if this is not the correct name for it) ruled those contracts void because they werent offered by the people of Iraq and chose to form their own companies to reap the rewards of the oil rather than the US Companies. Granted they would need to bring in specialists, but there are many countries around the world with those people.

I hope more people find their way to reading that article. I think its an unfair image that has been painted of Harper. I have been reading threads posted by people on the G&M. Some people write things and I cant help but wonder where they are getting these opinions from. I very much liked the reply that Harper sent and i like his plans; so far he has my vote.