carepov

Perhaps, but strength need not come from military spending. For Canada, our strongest asset is our close relationship with the USA. I would argue that whether we spend 0.7 or 4 % of our GDP will make no difference in our security. Excessive military spending can also diminish economic and ideological power.

You are making a lot of assumptions about my opinions that are not true. Please keep in mind that: -I am not anti-military -I respect and appreciate the work of our armed forces -I do not value money above human life -I am not in favour of cheap equipment -I never want to send out soldiers ill-equipped -As I said before, I argue for less defence spending AND better results (results include accomplishing the mission with fewer deaths) -I am concerned with the safety of our troops and with PTSD -I admire Romeo Dallaire For very good reasons, I do not trust the government, the DOD, or any other department. I am not an expert on military matters and therefore avoid making specific claims or recommendations, but am concerned with defence policies and defence spending. We can save potentially save a lot of money AND get the same results if we: -cancel the F35 program and get a comparable quality plane, perhaps the hornet -work more closely with our NATO allies to reduce duplication of capabilities -change our policy regarding the "need" to defend the north -stop flying around Peter McKay -.... Defence spending is ~1.3 % of out GDP but ~9% of our total budget. We have not focussed on other spending because it is not the topic of this thread.

I would very much be interested too. I would strongly consider supporting any poverty activist group that said something like: "Over the last 20 years, Canadian poverty rates have been declining - but there is still work to be done. One child living in poverty is one child too many."

Read again: I said: "I am not so sure we need 65 planes..." I am not making a claim I am just being sceptical - after all the BS coming from the government (all parties) and DOD how can anyone not be sceptical? By the way, it is not "the dept"'s money it is Canadian taxpayer money. And speaking of panties, yours seem to be tied up in a knot.

Yes, top quintile incomes are rising faster than the rest, but they are not getting "almost all of the increases in wealth": "... between 1995 and 2010. While average after-tax incomes increased by 12% for families with incomes in the bottom 20% and by 23% for families with incomes in the middle 60%, it rose by 37% for those in the top income group." http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=22 Also remember people move in and out of different income levels every year. The problem of growing inequality in Canada is being overblown. We should instead be looking at our success in reducing poverty, leveraging that success to further reductions and completely wiping out child poverty!

Increased inequality does not typically cause increased poverty. There are many cases of increased inequality and a reduction of poverty. Reduction of inequality and reduction of poverty are separate goals that require different approaches and policies. Ideally, I would like to see a more equal society and the elimination of poverty. If I had to choose between a less equal society with a lower poverty rate or a more equal society with a higher poverty rate I would choose the former. I agree that inequality is a big problem in the US. Canada's situation is very different: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/income-inequality.aspx

Correct, the bottom quintile income has not gone up - it has not gone down either as others have claimed. Point 2 was: people move in and out of the low income quintile every year. Also, the middle 60% has gone up - unlike many claims of an "eroding middle class" LICO is not a red herring, poverty is at a historic low point - surely this is significant.

Point 1: The low-income rate is at a record low: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=23 Point 2: People in low income move out of the low-income quintile every year. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=83

All good lies are "fact-based". Micheal Moore's films are "fact-based". Donald Trumps claims that Obama is a foreigner is "fact based". 9/11 truther theories are "fact-based"....

Yes the ads work. They will keep working until they don't. They are not "educational pieces" because they are biased - they are propaganda at best, they are offensive and disrespectful to all supporters of Trudeau/Dion/Ignatief. Trudeau has not "cried foul" - he has not "buckled" - he has responded quite well.

Here is some Canadian data, what do you think cyber and jacee? http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=22 http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=23 The average Canadian today is spending a lower percentage of their income on necessities (food, shelter, and clothing) compared to 40 years ago. The cbc article does a pretty good job explaining this: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ood-prices.html

segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said: Actually, no, its not "most likely" that the cost of the F35 will be double. As I pointed out before, the super hornet may only be in use for another decade or so. Australia only got it as a temporary measure. And the U.S. marine corps doesn't want to touch it because they want the F35. When you're the only country flying a particular plane, and that plane was already a decade old design, you will run into problems in the future. Ok whatever, my sources say that the total costs will be double of a comparable plane. Also, I'm not so sure that we need 65 of them. segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said: So you're argument is not "lets spend less and do the same", its just "lets do less". Well if you call playing war games while drinking glacier martinis in Hudson's Bay "doing something" then yes I do think we should do less. I am saying we should do less, spend less but get the same or even better results. segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said: So if (for example) the Americans or chinese decided to use the North West passage for shipping without our permission, what would you do? Send a strongly worded letter? Clench your little fist in range? I would do the same as you - unless you plan on deploying a scary fleet of 10 armed ice breakers thinking that it would actually change anything. Would you put up a blockade? Should we also have nuclear subs just in case? This is a low-risk (small probability of occurrence with very little consequence) potential problem that requires large resources. I would rather spend money on high-risk real problems. segnosaur, on 24 Apr 2013 - 17:14, said: Good for you. All of the people who might have died in Kosovo had we (meaning Canada and other Nato countries), or the Canadians who might have been the victims of al Qaeda terror attacks had they been allowed to continue in Afghanistan will sleep better knowing that. Again, my plan (spend less on the north, work more closely with allies allowing for a reduction in overlapping capabilities) would get better results. The resources used wisely in foreign aid could also prevent future issues and certainly better help protect human rights than your idea of "protecting" the north By the way I would not be so sure about Kosovo - it seems to me that the atrocities increased upon NATO bombing. (I'm not saying it was a bad move but it was not a glowing humanitarian success as you are suggesting.)

No single ad offends me greatly, however when all of them strung together they erode the publics trust in politicians and become divisive. Also, I especially do not like any political advertising outside of an election campaign.

Regarding the planes, there are unknowns and possibly the F35 will end up at the same cost or possible it will be three or four times the cost - all we know is that most likely it will cost double. No, I am not happy about it but I am not upset enough to spend billions of dollars on it either. Going back to the original premise, these billions would be better spent on effective foreign aid. I would rather donate the money to the Bill and Mellinda Gates foundation.

I was right about the airplanes: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html Of course the North is valuable and we certainly need search and rescue. But there is no threat. Two words regarding your incidents: "big deal". I am convinced that we could spend less money without any decrease in the value of our north. By the way I admitted my earlier mistake and am no longer suggesting we cut military spending by 0.7% of GDP to from 1.3 to 0.6% of GDP or $11 Billion. Perhaps a gradual reduction to 0.9% or 15.5 Billion would be more reasonable. Scrapping the F35 would be a significant step, as for the rest of the savings I will use Harper's line when asked how he will balance the budget: they will come from reducing inefficiencies. What would your defence budget be?

Well it looks like our government is supporting and funding studies to look into the exact question that Trudeau asks: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/20/stephen-harpers-search-for-the-root-causes-of-terrorism/ Are you in favour or opposed to the government spending referenced in the linked article?

Correct, much of the criticism of CPC is overblown, your census example is perfect. However, I am dissatisfied with our government for the following reasons: -regressive changes to our criminal justice system -Cutting the GST -lack of accountability despite promises made in 2006 (eg: budget officer) -lack of transparency and honesty (eg: Afgan detainee, F35) -Deteriorating status at the UN (failing to get elected to the Security Council) -Lack of progress in reducing child poverty - especially in the Native community -G20, wasted money and rights of Canadians violated -attack ads -using government funds to promote the CPC via propaganda media campaigns -cutting health care funding for refugees (although I do agree with most other initiatives in the immigration portfolio) -no senate reform Also, Arar is not and never was a terrorist http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/pdfs/cm_arar_rec-eng.pdf. I blame the former Liberal government as much as the CPC for this gross violation of human rights.

I am saying is that Canada's unique geopolitical situation is relevant in establishing our military objects and therefore our defence budgets. Surely you agree? Firstly we are "hiding behind the Americans" no matter what we do. Secondly, I would call it more like "working with our allies". "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html. This idea is analogous to our Space Program where we specialized in the Canad-Arm. I am not suggesting a weaker military because working with our allies does not equate to weakness. I am suggesting better results at a lower cost.

Thank you for responding to my admittedly "lazy" post (I prefer the term "efficient") No I do not think we need a significant military presence in the North. Why would we? I also would rather avoid a lengthly discussion on the F35 - but the price of these things is what got me so upset about military spending in the first place. My understanding is that the total costs (purchase plus operating) of the F35 would be about double the those of a F18 - for no significant advantages. This is an perfect example of cheaper and not weaker.

Thanks for the suggestion - but you are wrong - I am ahead: I have learned a couple of things and that is the main reason that I participate on MLW. I have definitely softened my position based on seg's posts and after more thought I may even end up changing it. hmmm....

Speaking of "special considerations", how many other countries are as peaceful as Canada and are good friends and neighbours to a country that spends 39% of the world's total military expenditures? Anyways, it looks like there is a large amount of waste and we can have a stronger military by spending less money.

Oooopps, after looking into the numbers I must admit that I was very wrong, we are spending about 1.2 % of GDP on Defence therefore reducing by 0.7% of GDP was an ignorant statement on my part. A more realistic stretch target may be 0.9% of GDP meaning foreign aid would need to come from other places. Anyways, for specific cuts, please see http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/14/cutting-where-it-hurts-most/. I would agree with FT_Ward in the comments section.

I agree with you too but am convinced we we can accomplish the above objectives at a cheaper price - at least 0.7% of GDP cheaper.

Yes, I 100% agree with your flawless logic.

You are right, the "us versus them" mentality is human nature - even babies think this way. The key is defining "us". -my immediate family? -the members of my family of a certain gender? -my clan? -people of my village, as long as they have no apparent mental disorders? -people of my country that have the same skin color as me and are heterosexual? -people of my religion? -people in my country and those in countries that have military alliances with mine? -people on my continent? Why not make it easy? "us" = human