Jerry J. Fortin

Actually my post had no foundation of truth to it at all, it was a statement merely made to clearly indicate that our military asks for one thing and it gets another. As it so happens we have a very pathetic track record in properly equipping our forces. My point is that this nation must carefully consider its position with respect to its military. We simply don't spend very much on it, and in this world you only get what you pay for. If you want to actually defend this nation you could expect to at least triple our budget for DND. Even then it will take more than a generation to even begin putting together a signifigant force composition. For my consideration modest means endangered on the battlefield.

What do you mean by "equally applied" and that the payment must be "made equal in cost to all tax payers". Does that mean that each man, woman , and child pays the same dollar amount? Why or why not? Equal between business and personal tax payers. The level of taxation woud be the same for everybody. This consideration may already invalidate your criterion that the taxes be "equally applied". If a person generates only sufficient income (or less) to cover exempted items, then they will pay no tax. This essentially violates that taxes are "equally applied". To a degree yes, however what sense is there in taxing a person to death? There needs to be a floor as well as a ceiling doesn't there? If there is nothing left which to pay the government after poviding basic needs than I would suggest the government won't get paid no matter what legislation is in place. The biggest reason that the government spends little to collect the GST is that it hoists those costs onto retail businesses. In a fairer system, it would actually have to reimburse businesses for acting as its tax collector. Private industry collects GST on a daily basis but submits it to the government quarterly, it banks the money and claims the interest earned as a fee, thats how it was set up in the first place.

The real issue is that this crap is about as important as gay marriage debates, not at all. I could care less what who calls their ex's, position of authority or not. It was not directed as a public commentary applicable to the citizens, it was simply school boy immaturity not worthy of comment.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines........... I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts. The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. They wanted missle cruisers, they got frigates. They wanted real subs and they got obsolete crap that killed sailors. The military knew what they needed to do the job that was given to them by the government who then gave them less than what they needed and endangered their lives in doing so. Once again it is a question of force composition, what we have is barely adequate for peace keeping and completely 2nd rate for entering into an aggressive engagement. Listen fella, the stuff needed to play in the big leagues is far from cheap and second hand and second rate equipment can get you killed. I am not keen on the idea of sending my fellow citizens into a gun fight packing a knife. Our guys are good, so good that they would be downright awesome if they had the right equipment and the proper political support. All I am saying is that we should crap or get off the pot.

Sure he did....... Using the available material that you have provided my statement is correct and yours is inaccurate. You seem to now want to increase the referance material good for you. But you still can't take things out of context. The quotes you have now posted provide more information regarding what in the General's mind is or is not a traditional role for our military. My original point on this subject was the political consequence of creating the Peace Keeper role for Canadian military forces by Pearson. I stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of. In my opinion this force composition is inadequate to our political goals. The point that the General is making is that our TRADITIONAL role is not Peace Keeping but active participation in conflict. He is stating that we do take sides, and have traditionally done so. Now I have no idea what your strategic point is here, I am not bashing the military or criticizing our military leaders what I am doing is stating that our government needs to make a decision to properly equip our troops to be able to implement our foreign policy. What we have is an underfunded military that is stretched to the limit in simply providing a few thousand troops in an effort to support our allies. The ongoing foolishness in politics that is trying to make points on the backs of those who serve this nation by risking their lives is pathetic. My family has a long historical relationship with the military dating back more than three hundred years in this nation. I support our troops, I do not support weak kneed politicians who haven't the guts to actually do anything of risk to themselves. The point I am so unsuccessful in attempting to make is that we need to slow down and take a few breaths and think about what we are doing. If this government wants to take a more active role in international security, then it had better convince the Canadian citizens that they need to spend their hard earned money in order rearm this nation to the extent that the government believes is necessary to provide for the security of the nation. M.Dancer I mean you no harm, nor do I bear any ill will to you. I respect what you have posted in this forum, but I tend to be a little picky about quotes and contexts. Hell half of the problems this world has experienced have been caused by misunderstandings the other half by stupidity and greed. So when I ask questions I am really trying to understand, not rebuke or dismiss out of hand.

I wonder if people realize that by other nations taking sides in the eternal conflict found in the middle east that we are perpetuating their misery.

I have to agree with you.

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/speaker/news061031.htm Remembrance Service at the Alberta Legislature November 9 Edmonton—“Through the act of remembrance we recognize the efforts of those who have answered their country’s call of duty in times of war,” said the Honourable Ken Kowalski, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. “The sacrifices made by men and women during service with the Canadian Armed Forces should never be forgotten.” Speaker Kowalski will host the traditional Remembrance Ceremony in the rotunda of the Legislature Building at 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 9. The Honourable Ralph Klein, Premier; Dr. Kevin Taft, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition; and Mr. Brian Mason, Leader of the Third Party Opposition, will participate in the service. The Legislative Assembly is also honoured to welcome an ensemble from the Salvation Army Edmonton Temple Corps and students from Lynnwood Elementary School. Wreaths will be laid on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta; the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees and the youth of Alberta in memory of those Albertans from all walks of life who gave their lives for freedom in the First and Second World Wars, the Korean War, and the many United Nations and NATO operations to preserve peace and order. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

That isn't what he said at all. He said that our priority was that of a Nato obligation, and that our UN commitments were 1/5 the size of the Nato ones.

How can you say that I'm taking his comments out of context when you don't understand what he is saying in the first place? Okay I will bite, what is it that you think he was trying to say?

I never said that we were. I said the role that we played was that of peace keeper. Our force composition is sufficient for that role, but I believe it to be insufficient to conduct offensive operations of any scale over any sustained length of time.

With him or with you? You are misunderstanding what he said. You are trying to take his comments out of context to prove your point. I am merely calling you on it. Let me try this again so that you can understand it. Canada does not and never did posses nuclear weapons of any type. If you can prove we did or do, then go for it , you will be the first to do have ever done so. Afganistan is at the extreme end of a long supply chain. The terminus of that chain is in Kabul. Our forces are no longer exclusively in Kabul, so consequently we are forced to operate outside of the supply chain. That is normal in aggressive operations, however our ability to resupply is extremely limited. Your referance to Rommel is interesting though. He did in fact operate in the absence of a supply chain for quite sometime, he also lost. Or rather his troops did after he was redeployed to oversee the coastal defenses in France and prepare for the Allied invasion.

That about sums it up!

Good for you! While I wait for you please referance those nuclear weapons for me. Tell me what types and means of deployment we had. Playing war games and conducting offensive operations away from supply lines is not the same thing.

TSE down 300 points earlier but regained 85 points since news broke about the trust fund change...down 219 now.

That is only partially true. Lew Mackenzie had an editorial that firmly skewers that myth......... http://right-direction.blogspot.com/2006/0...ack-layton.html You neglect to mention that garrison duty is a rather light expenditure on material. We were also an integrated component of a rather equipped superior force who were willing and able to meet our supply needs. This is decidedly different, we are basically on our own now with nobody to hold our hand.

I am not so sure that it is a bad move. Layton wants government to act on the environment and they want a say in that policy, so they play the trump card. He cannot concern himself with the problems of other partisan factions, he has his own to worry about. The Liberals are not his problem. As far as the Liberals go, a general election would not likely occur until after Christmas, say mid January. That particular timing would be perfect to carry media attention on the Liberal Party from the convention to the polls. Not such a bad break for the Liberals.

WE need to convert to a fair tax system. The only definition of a fair tax is one that is equally applied. To that end a system of taxation needs to be created that provides a sufficient revenue stream for the government to pay for existing programs and debt repayment while at the same time being made equal in cost to all tax payers. Since there are two categories of tax payers; business and personal, any new system must be applicable to both. In my opinion the first consideration should be the application of taxation. Some things need to be considered exempt from taxation, those things can be described as basic needs. The government ought not to impose tax on basic needs because this has a detrimental impact to the least affluent of citizens. That impact would comprimise the ability of the citizen to acquire basic needs and therefore a floor must be designed in which a citizen can acquire the goods and services necessary to sustain their basic needs. The second consideration should in my opinion should be the level of taxation. The government ought not to be able to levy taxes without cause and therefore budgets need to be designed to provide cause. In this type of environment nether surplus nor deficit can be considered normal or acceptable. Contained within each budget must be a levy sufficient to cover a large unplanned expenditure equal to the historical record one time expenditure. If this is not required by the end of the fiscal year those funds ought to be utilized to pay down the national debt. The balance of the budget must be sufficient to cover all normal operating expenses of government without addition. The level of taxation applied to the tax payer is then equal to the budget divided by the number of tax payers, that number provides a personal tax load. The means that the government must use to acquire those sufficient funds to operate society is absolutely key to the success of the endeavour. To date the most successful means of tax collecting has been the GST. The government spends very little to collect these funds unlike their costs to collect income taxes which are extensive. Using this model makes the most sense then. That in turn dictates a system of taxation that is based upon transactions and not income, it is not personal just business. This system is completely blind in its application. A fair tax system that provides for the equal application to all citizens is a desireable an achieveable goal.

Canadians need to make a very important decision. Our previous international role that we have played since Prime Minister Pearson was that of Peace Keeper. We now find ourselves attempting to take on the role of Peace Maker, there is a very large difference in these two roles. There is a completely different set of operational requirements. Different operational requirements translates into different force composition. Our military is being utilized in a manner that it is simply not equiped to undertake. The decision we need to make is a political one in which the military budget is sufficient to operate in a manner that is consistant with political directives. This would represent a vast change that would have a decidedly costly impact to government spending. Either we are at war and need to spend a great deal of money to properly equip our military or we are not at war and do not need to send our troops into battle.

I agree. We could have free-will pay-what-you-can donations. With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics. In a few short months, you will gain skills that will allow you to speed through more research (both for and against) of your views. You are harsh! Very carefully but still...............

There is global warming, or climate change, call it what you want but it does exist. The question is what to do about it? Forget the blame game because that will not solve the problem. Forget trying to solve the problem at all. Just deal with the implications. It doesn't matter what caused the change, we could not have prevented it from happening even it was in fact caused by humans because we did not understand the consequences if/when we embarked on a path that created the problems. Having said that are the effect of this change reversable within a smaller time period than the effects if left unchecked will take place? I think not. We simply don't have the means or the technology to reverse these effects. So why cry over the spilt milk? Lets grow up and deal with the problem to the best of our ability. Reductions and or eliminations of emmissions will only reduce the effects, they will still come to pass in spite of our efforts. So why not take that into account in formulating a plan of ACTION. Yes we need to deal with emmissions and polution, but what we also need to do is figure out how to adapt to our changing world. That is far more important than blaming Fred, Barney or Joe for creating the damned problem. The fact is that we have a freaking problem and beating up Fred, Barney and Joe won't make it go away. Legislating ourselves to death with political puppets won't solve the problem either. We need to start thinking about what the effects may mean to our society. Will we be faced with a hot desert for a climate or a frozen wasteland? Should we plan on cheap air conditioning or cheap heat? Will there be enough water or too much? There are a hell of a lot of questions that we simply don't have answers to, so we need plans to cover both ends of the spectrum. The only sure thing here folks is that things will change. Ignore this or deny it and our ability to adapt may be comprimised.

All the more reason to reform government don't you think? Climate change is a fact, the cause may be in dispute but that does not change the fact. The question of what to do about it is the responsibility of government. This will cost citizens, of that there is no doubt in my mind. Business will not suffer because costs are always passed on to the end user of products or services. It is the little guy who will pay for this never fear.

While it is true that oil dropped from 40 to 8 dollars a barrel, which truely is an economic factor, you fail to mention that the driving force behind the program was that at the time of its creation oil was 40 dollars a barrel and the feds wanted cheaper oil from Alberta then they were paying for the imported oil they were buying from elsewhere! That was the real truth behind the program. The result was a devastated industry that provided 1 of every 6 jobs in the province. Inflation was through the roof at the time and our unemployment went into double digits. Personal and business bankrupcies went into a fierce upward spiral with many people losing their homes. These things are not minor and they were ultimately caused as a result of the NEP, because had the government not ramned that program down Alberta throats those companies would have continued their development in spite of the fall in prices. It was the federally imposed export tax that set them on them back. There's more fiction. Tranfer payments don't come from taxes imposed on a province. They come from the income taxes imposed on every taxpayer. Well that is true enough, but how about the rest of the calculation which returns those tax dollars to the citizens? Are you really suggesting that Alberta recieves that money back, because any fool can read the numbers and conclude that our tax dollars go elsewhere. Look Alberta and Ontario are the only ones that pay into that fund, maybe BC next year and possibly Saskatchewan as well, but lets just deal with the current numbers. Of the nearly 11 billion almost 90% came from Albertans. Ontario has as many people in Toronto as we have in our whole province and yet we are paying a largely disproprtional amount into equalization. Granted we are making the money, but the feds have a little discriminatory tax just for those provinces that don't live on the federal dime. Its not fiction my deluded friend, just a little dose of reality for you. Things are a little more complicated than you may be able to understand, but please try to understand the sentiments of Albertans. We do not want to seperate, we are being pushed into that corner. We simply can't afford to pay everybody else's way while ignoring our own troubles. Its not that we are greedy, we just want to look after our own in a manner of our choosing. Look at it this way, we make up a growing proportion of the nations GDP, and pay a growing amount of taxes into the federal system and yet we have a very small percentage of representation in the political process. Granted that the system is designed the way it is and all looks fair and impartial within that context but we still want more of a say because of what we pay. To us the partnership in confederation is becoming more imbalanced everyday because we contribute more and recieve less every year. That is the essence of our problems with equalization.

I agree that there should be a test. Here are the questions for such a test. 1) Are you a Canadian citizen? 2) Are you currently incarcerated? 3) Are you a tax payer? Sat yes to these questions and you are entitled to vote, period. But I still think that it ought to be against the law not to vote.

That would be funny, if it weren't so perversely self-serving, and so pathologically self-pitying. Yes, it would be funny, if it didn't make me want to puke. You must live in Ontario or Quebec. I love when Easterners come here or speak their mind on what's best for Alberta. You misunderstand my objection. I'm reacting to the ludicrous idea that Alberta's situation compares with that of aboriginal peoples. I merely said that we believe we were mistreated by the feds. I could have said that First Nations peoples were abused more than Albertans, but how much abuse by the federal system constitutes enough?