segnosaur

Ummm... you do realize that the Australians are still planning on purchasing the F-35. From: http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=6619 The withdrawal of the F-111 is expected in 2010 with the F/A-18F Super Hornets to be operational that same year. ... The F/A-18F Super Hornet...will ensure our air combat capability edge is maintained through the transition to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next decade. You see, the Australian situation is different than Canada's. Down there, their primary plane was the F-111, a plane that was originally introduced in 1967. That makes it more than a decade older than the CF-18 Hornet. They only purchased the Super Hornet as a temporary measure, because they felt the F-111 was no longer viable, and there was too much of a wait until the F-35 was available for export. Yeah, the plane was purchased on-time and on-budget, but the military there believes that the F-35 is still the "better buy".

Yes he did. But guess what? The point is, he had a surplus, and he had one with little or no effort. Actually, he wasn't quite the tightwad as you might think. For example, under Martin and the Liberals you had: - The Millennium scholarship program (multi-billion dollar program) - Canadian Gun registry (1-2 billion) - Quebec sponsorship program (multi-million dollars) And it is true that they did cut other spending, but many of their spending cuts were in things like health car, things many Canadians would think perhaps shouldn't be cut.

Keep in mind that there are at least a few financial shenannigans going on here. The initial plan was to purchase (I think) 700 planes. They developed cost estimates based on the number of planes, including development costs. Later, they greatly reduced the number purchased. The problem is, the development costs remained the same, so the price-per-unit increased. Once that happened, people started claiming "The plane is too costly". However, had they ordered the original 700 it wouldn't have been as expensive on a per-plane basis.

It seems, Ireland couldn't find a brain damaged monkey. (With interest rates that low, a lot of other heads of state thought it was free money time.) The main difference between the Chretien years and the current situation in Ireland is that, as I pointed out before, Chretien came in at a period where there was a strong expanding economy. For example, if you look at the 1993-2003 growth period, the U.S. economy (GDP) grew by around 40%. (Now, why am I using the U.S. economy here instead of Canada's? I'm doing so as a way to show that the growth had nothing to do with Chretien.) That works out to an expansion of 4-5% per year on average. That means more Canadian exports, more jobs, and more importantly, more tax revenue. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230 On the other hand, the situation in Ireland coincided with a global economic slowdown. Still, don't really see why the situation in Ireland is relevant though.

Well, the best way to explain this is the old saying: On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html GWiz claims to be "knowledgeable" about certain things (the F-35, the economy, etc.), but is arguments are often quite easy to debunk. Its quite possible that he's not familiar with an event that's only 2 weeks old (although he should have still known it was "close to production"). However, I think the more logical explanation is that he's not quite as knowledgeable as he is claiming to be.

I think you did a pretty good job at explaining it, but an actual on-line reference would be very helpful. (I prefer to be cautions about these things.) To be honest, its quite possible that the 'cost overruns' won't affect our purchase price. But then, these sorts of deals can be very complex... development price vs. production cost, maintenance contracts vs. expected life time of plane, etc. I'm sure there's politicking and cherry picking of data from both sides of the debate. I doubt we'll truly know the true cost until we actually have them sitting on our air strips (well, assuming we do indeed purchase them.) I cannot say for certain whether the F-35 will be a "good buy" for Canada. But so far, most of the arguments made by F-35 critics seem to be flawed.

Ummm.. no. When Martin became finance minister, he inherited a budget surplus, plus the global economy was robust and interest rates were low. A brain damaged monkey could have balanced the budget under those conditions. He could have sat with his thumbs up his butt for the first term or two and the deficit still would have been eliminated. I explained all this to you before. (Of course your only response was "Brian Mulroneey was a poo-poo head" or something along those lines.) About the only major thing that Martin did right (and that I give him credit for) is revamping the CPP, but that has nothing to do with his reputation for "managing Canada's finances".

Wait a second... you're a "Trudeau Liberal", even though he managed to take the debt load from $19 billion to $172 billion? Who had a budget surplus in his first few years, and left with a huge deficit, which he ran for over a decade? And yet you criticize Harper for running a deficit at a time when there is a global recession? Wow, just, wow. Does your hypocrisy know any bounds? I see.. So the Canadian public is "stupid and ignorant". So what exactly are you proud of then? Oh, and by the way, its the same basic population base that also elected Chretien and Trudeau. Still think people were 'stupid and ignorant' then?

Wouldn't necessarily say that the F22 is "dead". The plane was very expensive (understandable, given the advanced features of the plane... vectored thrust, supersonic speed with no afterburners, low radar cross section), and the number on order was greatly reduced. But its in service now, and while there have been problems there have also been successes. There were problems with rain with some of the planes stationed in Guam. However, they did fix the problems. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_F22_100409w/

you're certainly pumping up the volume over something that's, what... 2 weeks old now? GWiz made an incorrect statement about the plane being "nowhere near production". I provided evidence that he was wrong, that indeed the plane was in production. The fact that the information was 2 weeks old is irrelevant... GWiz was still wrong. Well, from what I hear the U.S. air force is expecting its first shipment during 2011 (i.e. this year). It will be a small shipment (and I'm sure the U.S. will get priority for new planes for the next little while), but they are being made. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/05/airforce_force_structure_051610W/

Really? if you've been "following it closely" then how come you made the claim that it was "nowhere near production" when they've actually finished the first production model of the plane last month? Not that there haven't been problems, and not that there won't be problems in the future, but darn it, such uninformed statements make the critics of the F35 look incredibly foolish.

Psssttt.... http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d3f2616c-4ef6-4e7e-b0c1-b79713c5f48b The first production F-35, CTOL aircraft AF-6, made an hour-long first flight today (Feb. 25) from Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant...

No, it was the opposition that forced the spending. Well, congratulations... you were right to admit that. But guess what? The original poster (the one that I was responding to) did nothing to acknowledge the Liberal/NDP role in this; yet he continued to complain about the current deficits. He was hypocritical. So... still a strike 1 (even if you might actually be a little more reasonable.) So? Governments advertise their programs all the time. I've seen the ad for programs like the CDIC for decades (under both Liberal and Conservative governments), even though its pretty pointless. (You don't actually have to doanything to have your investments covered by the CDIC). And the Chretien government advertised the Millenium scholarship, not exactly a necessary expense. And realistically, given the amount of money spent, $40million works out to less than 1% of the total. The issue was hypocrisy and double standards. If someone is going to condemn the conservatives for something, condemn them for policies/actions that they and only they are involved in. So was Harper and look how that turned out. From the looks of things you haven't been following the thread of that particular argument. At no point did I ever claim that Harper didn't benefit from past government programs. Heck, I've always made it clear that many of his 'successes' were due to luck. The point I was making though was that Chretien similarly benefited by factors that were outside of his control. The other poster failed to acknowledge that; instead, he called the concept 'manure'. Now, if you're agreeing that Chretien's success in fighting the deficit was largely due to an operating surplus left by Mulroney, in addition to a favorable global economic situation (low international interest rates/strong growth), then congratulations... you get it. However GWiz does not. He still fails. Still a strike. Where are those transfers right now? Irrelevant question. It was the argument from GWiz that the stimulus spending wasn't necessary because Liberal programs (including increased transfers to the provinces) would already have fixed the problem. If you disagree with that premise, then I suggest you take it up with GWiz, and tell him he's wrong; that provincial transfers alone would not have helped recovery. My argument was that if such transfers did help, then Harper deserves some credit because he increased those payments. Once again, GWiz was either ignorant or deceptive when he suggested that all such funding was due to the Liberals. So, GWiz still failed. Still a strike. Though thinking that one can't read certain facts and come to a different conclusion from said article isn't physically lazy as you're accusing Gwiz of being, it is mentally lazy. GWiz didn't read certain facts and come to a particular conclusion. He completely ignored facts that contradicted his arguments. Fake lakes, glow sticks - take your pick. Ah yes, the "fake lake" issue. Once claimed to cost "millions", but later revealed to be less than $60,000 (or a tiny fraction of the cost of the media center.) You do realize that facilities for the journalists were required. Rightly or wrongly, they thought that recreating the "muskoka" experience would help put Canada in a better light. Perhaps you think the media should have been confined to an empty room with plane white walls. Tell that to GWiz, who somehow thinks that the security costs should be less because, well, darn, it was no longer Russia's first appearance at the G8, an argument that makes no sense. I'm sure given the circumstances of the G20 and the horrible way in which is planned probably is the reason why she deemed the expenses weren't so out of whack. How about the fact that she deemed the expenses "weren't so out of wack" because any such global meeting will always have high security costs. Even if the G8 had "become useless" (not saying it has or hasn't), it wouldn't have been Harper's call to make. Canada is a member nation, and we are a host to events (in rotation) but we don't have final authority whether such meetings should continue to be held. Did you ever consider there may have been other considerations apart from just "securing the area"? From: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/830274--toronto-s-advice-ignored-on-g20-miller-says ...the Exhibition grounds had been ruled out because it had no hotels for the leaders, and additional challenges that would create to travel and security in and out of the areas. So, you make the event itself easier to patrol by holding it at the CNE, but you create additional security risks by requiring significant transport from hotels to the CNE grounds. Oh, and think it might eliminate the need for police to stop protesters? Well, when they had the G8 summit in Kanaskis, they still had to deal with protesters in Calgary (the closest 'large' city, miles away). So even if they did move things to the CNE grounds, they'd still have to have police around to deal with potentially violent situations far from the event itself. Plus, I should point out that other major costs (such as regular flyovers by the military) were not going to be affected by the location. So, by holding it at the CNE you might make the site of the event itself a little more secure, but you still: - Have to have security around downtown hotels where the leaders are staying (so, headaches in 2 parts of the city instead of one) - Have to deal with secure transportation too/from the event (wonder how commuters would feel if they had to close off parts of the 401 in the morning for motorcades. And I wonder just how much more that would add to expenses). - Still need police in the downtown area to handle protesters - Still need basic military services like flyovers No, they haven't. And the article that GWiz referred to (the one he cherry picked from) explained that. The costs of summits in (for example) the U.S. appear to cost less, but its because they handle their costs differently. They have a greater military infrastructure, so an event like a G8/G20 summit doesn't necessarily create the same overhead. No, just that we could've done it for much cheaper as I described above. Once again, it was GWiz who was suggesting that was suggesting we wouldn't need the same level of security as we had at the 2002 G8 summit (because everyone loves Obama, or some bizarre reason.) Oh, and I explained why your alternative (holding it at the CNE grounds) may not have resulted in a more efficient summit. You're fairly ignorant as well. The Arrow was replaced with BOMARC. BOMARC wasn't some ballistic missile defence system, they were nuclear missiles meant to eliminate bomber squadrons with nuclear warheads. I'm quote familiar with the BOMARC. They even have one on display at the Aviation museum in Ottawa. Not sure what your point in bringing them up is though. If anything, it proves that the Arrow was even more useless, since its function could easily be handled by the BOMARC. Because they would have been prohibitively expensive, and the role we needed them for was not needed. Not really. The F35 is a multirole fighter. It can be used in an interceptor role, but it can also be used as an air superiority fighter, or in an air-to-ground attack role. The Avro Arrow was an interceptor. It was more or less a single purpose plane, specialized to climb quickly/fly fast. However, in general interceptors usually are limited in manuveribilty, and heck: I don't even think the Arrow had the ability to carry anything other than missiles (so it would be limited in an air to ground role.) Considering how you're doing I wouldn't be putting him down if I were you. Well, here's the thing... you seem to have ignored most of the posts/arguments that GWiz and myself were actually making. Instead, you jumped in at the end, made your own 'straw men', and criticized me for things that I never argued to begin with.

Do have to disagree here. I am not exactly sure what went through Hitler's mind, but I doubt he felt what he was doing was 'evil'. In his mind, he probably felt his actions were morally justified. He was of course wrong/immoral/evil, but he himself probably thought otherwise.

elsewhere in this thread supporters of the purchase claim the plane will serve us for 40yrs now you have us either buying new planes in 20 yrs or upgrading this one in 20...you can't have it both ways... Actually, I'm not trying to do either one. The original poster appeared to be presenting this as a "this plane has massive cost overruns" type argument. I am just trying to examine the situation with a little rationality. I am not sure what will happen in 30 years. (What upgrades to our planes will be necessary, what alternatives there will be, how much ongoing maintenance will be needed.) These are new planes, with all sorts of problems that you'd expect from new technology. But any evaluation of potential fighter planes should be done under fair circumstances. Complaining only about the F35s post-20 year costs without considering the costs of similar planes in the same time frame is not making a fair comparison. You're right, purchases will be around a long time. That's why I'm rather skeptical about suggestions to buy the Super-hornet instead of the F35... its a fine plane now, but it is already a decade old. There's more chance it will need major upgrades in the far future. Yeah but what if instead of getting the Ferrari, you bought a Ford P.O.S. (or whatever your worst care is), and you needed to bring it to the mechanic to have it serviced a week after you bought it, rather than years down the road?

Ah, once again, you do your best to ignore the hard questions. The ones that expose your hypocrisy. I guess its typical. You're almost like the Charlie Sheen of this thread. All you need to do is shout "winning!" But just to remind people of your many many failures: - You condemned the conservatives for the deficit, when the Liberal/NDP coalition also had plans to greatly increase spending. So, strike 1. - You ignore the fact that Chretien was lucky to inherit an operating surplus and a favorable economy to allow him to "fight the deficit". Oh wait, you didn't ignore it.. you instead posted a wikipedia reference pointing to irrelevant information. Strike 2. - You praise the Liberals for programs that increased transfers to governments that supposedly helped save our economy, when the Harper government was actually increasing transfers in his first few years of power (by more than the rate of inflation). Strike 3. - You condemn the costs of the G8/G20 summits, but ignore a statement from an expert in a reference YOU provided that pointed out that the cost of the summits were reasonable. Were you really so lazy that you couldn't even finish reading the article that you were quoting? Strike 4. - Once again, at no point have you ever pointed out even one significant cost of the summit that was avoidable. Strike 5. - You are ignorant of statements made by Sheila Fraser (you know, the person who's known for keeping our book keeping honest) that similarly stated that "security is expensive", and that we shouldn't consider the initial $176 million estimate as relevant. But hey, what does she know? Maybe you should contact her and ask to take over her job. Strike 6. - You somehow think that the security requirements at the 2002 summit were more serious, suggesting perhaps that nobody in the world would ever want to hurt Obama, and that none of the other 'extra' participants actually need protection. Strike 7. - You express a complete ignorance of the global military situation of the late 50s/early 60s by continually insisting we need the Avro Arrow to stop russian bombers, even though that threat had been overshadowed by the risk of ICBMs. Next thing you know you'll be suggesting we build a wall to keep out invading Mongolian horsemen, even though Geingas Kahn has been dead for centuries and tanks, bombs, and guns pose a bigger threat. Strike 8. You know, I'm not a baseball fan, but I rather think that 8 strikes is more than enough to consider someone "out". Now what do I expect? I expect once again you will run away and hide, and engage in nothing more than crude ad hominem attacks. That's probably all your capable of. Sad really. But don't worry, next time you post nonsense, I'll be quite ready to debunk it. Maybe I'll even re-post this list just to remind people of your failures.

Do you really think so? If you look at the cost of the PAK FA program you referred to lower in your post, the cost of the program plus a fleet of 65 planes would be around $16 billion. And that doesn't include any long term maintenance/upgrades (which is likely going to end up more or less doubling the price). So you're talking even more money than for the F35 fighter jet. Not to mention the fact that countries like the U.S. or Russia have substantial aerospace infrastructure to leverage any new development over. Canada would have to build its fighter-jet industry from the ground up, which would likely increase costs. These arguments again? I thought this sort of thing had already been hashed out long ago. The F35 had its first test flight half a decade ago. The Sukhoi only had its first test flight last year, and there have only been 2 built, and according to Wikipedia, one of them hasn't even flown yet. The F35 appears to be much further ahead in its development cycle. Every new plane is likely to experience cost overruns and design problems. Do you think the PAK FA will be any different? (Since it is further behind in its development cycle, I'd expect more problems in the future with it than with the F35. Then there's the other factors: no guarantee that Canadian industry would benefit from it, it may result in compatibility issues with NATO allies, etc.

I expressed my point of view to my Liberal friends, some Liberal MPs, and even Ignatieff DIRECTLY... It was not the first TIME nor will it be the last TIME I've disagreed with something the Liberal party does... Umm... you do realize that even though I'm probably much smarter than you, I'm not omnipotent. I have no idea what exactly what you communicate to Liberal MPs/friends/etc. (Or do you think I'm stalking you, reading your emails when you're not looking and tapping your telephone?) All I can judge you by is what you've written here. And all I can see is hypocrisy... You contemn the Conservatives for the deficit, but at no point do I ever even remembering you acknowledging Liberal/NDP plans to engage in similar stimulus spending. If you really want to appear unbiased, here's a hint: Instead of saying "Harper bad, liberals better", don't ignore what the Liberals had been planning on doing. Nope, I recognize quite well that you're a biased individual who is willing to engage in the typical activities of A: avoiding the hard questions, B: bringing up irrelevancies, and C: ignoring information that contradicts your beliefs. You're a lost cost. But as I explained before (see post 75) there may be others who are capable of examining these issues with rational thought. Ignored it because it was irrelevant. The Liberal/NDP wanted increased spending. Do you honestly think if the conservatives kept going and tried to debate in the house of commons "We don't need stimulus" that the Liberals/NDP would have changed their minds? Really? First of all, once again you have failed to give even one major item tossed around that was an example of "waste". Secondly, once again you have ignored your very own reference which had a quote from an expert who pointed out that the costs are reasonable and in line with what is expected. Heck, even our auditor General isn't quite ready to condemn the tories for the "huge increases"... From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/05/28/g8-g20-summit-expenses-sheila-fraser.html ...She said she "was and wasn't" surprised to hear the security cost estimate, but added preparations for large events that last only for a few days require extensive co-ordination months in advance. "Obviously, a billion dollars is a lot of money, but I think we have to recognize that security is expensive," Fraser said.... The auditor-general cautioned against saying the costs for the summit have ballooned, because the government's preliminary disclosure of $179 million for summit security spending in the last budget was not an initial estimate of what the full costs would be. Actually, I'm not asking you to justify the costs of the 2002 summit. I have never complained about the spending for that meeting. I recognize that the ~$200 million price tag was reasonable because, as Fraser said "Security is expensive". Instead, what I'm doing is pointing out that a similar international meeting had similar costs, when you consider the number of participants, length of meetings, and increased costs due to inflation. I see. And do you really think that somehow the need for security has gone down? That just because Obama is the president that there isn't going to be any attempts on his life (or the lives of any other leaders)? That Everybody Loves Obama? That all the protesters will now say "Oh, Bush isn't in office. No need to attend"? Yup, and guess what... Russia was also in attendance at the G8/G20 summits in Huntsville/Toronto. Do you think they only need to provide security for the first time a country attends a conference, then they never have to attend one again? Yup, there were African delegates at the 2002 summit (South Africa, Senegal, Nigeria, Algeria). But guess what? The G8/G20 summits Also had a large number of "observer nations/organizations". Not only did they have some of the African nations (like Nigeria/Ethiopia), but they also had Vietnam, a group from the African Union, OECD, etc. So you actually had more non-member attendance at the 2010 summits than you did at the 2002 summits. Ummm, so? The success of the 2002 summit had more to do with the goals/aims of the individual participants. Do you think you're an example of "an adult"? Does being an adult involve complete and utter hypocrisy (as in "Harper is wrong in running a deficit even though the Liberals were planning on doing that too")? Does it involve "cheery picking" information and ignoring facts (Like how you ignored a quote from an expert in an article you posted that said the G8/G20 costs were reasonable)? Does it involve using irrelevant "facts" and ignoring questions that were posed to you (such as when I pointed to the operating surplus left by Mulroney and favorable global conditions to be key in Chretien's "success", and you responded by pointing to their later election defeat, which didn't deal with the operating surplus at all)? Boy, if that's what it takes to be an adult I'm going to have to get a lobotomy. That's because you get bored having your claims debunked over and over again.

Not sure what the case is here (since the article doesn't go into significant detail about what the exact costs are). However, from the looks of things, the costs from the budget office are for 30 years of usage for the plane; on the other hand, figures quoted by the conservatives appear to be for a 20 year life span (From the article: “We have committed $9-billion to the acquisition of 65 aircraft and $250-million to $300-million over 20 years for in-service support,” he said..) So, it may not necessarily be a case of the planes being "overpriced" (or having their costs increased); it may just be that each side is considering a different active life span for the plane. However, even if some plane other than the F35 is chosen it will likely have the same result... costs at the end of a plane's expected life span often have increased costs as upgrades and increased maintenance becomes necessary. (Much like the way my 10 year old car costs more when I bring it to the mechanic now than in the first year than I bought it.) Edited to add: Keep in mind that some of the alternatives, such as the Super Hornet, and the Gripen, have been in service for over a decade. While that does make their short term costs a lot more predictable, it also means that any upgrades will likely be required sooner than for an all-new Jet like the F-35.

Yes I do... In that case, I must congratulate you on your ability to keep your understanding of "context" well hidden. I remember it well, in fact I AGREED that there was NO NEED for Canada to go into US style "stimulous spending"... You see, this is the type of logical disconnect that really illustrates a failure in rational thinking among people like yourself. Earlier on, you claimed things would somehow be 'better' with the Liberals in charge. Yet the Liberals themselves were pushing for that "US style Stimulus spending". You condemn the Conservatives for it, but you give a free pass to the Liberals/NDP. So, do you think the Liberals/NDP were lying? Do you think they were going to get into power and just say "Ha! We lied! No stimulus!" Why is Conservative Stimulus spending "bad", while Liberal/NDP stimulus spending OK? A little consistency might actually make you seem less like a raving fanboy. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that whatever programs were in place before the recession do not matter, as the Liberal/NDP coalition was going to add more spending anyways. Oh, and by the way, keep in mind that the Harper government had already been increasing its payments to the provincial governments long before the global recession and stimulus package. (Equalization payments went up by around 7-8% in the first few years of Harper's government. See: http://www.fin.gc.ca/estimates-evaluations/rpp14_-eng.asp) Nope, quite relevant, since you've totally ignored the fact that the Liberals (the party you want to run the country) were also planning on stimulus spending. You might be willing to ignore the hyporicy, but I am not. Where did I say any different? First of all, you claimed that we did not "go into said "Global Recession". You never did anything to acknowlege that there was any recession; instead, all you claimed was that it was a 'glancing blow'. Ummm... guess what? With a GDP of between 1 and 1.5 trillion, a 3.3% drop results in a drop of around 40 billion dollars to our economy. Given the amount of money the government collects in taxes, that alone would result in multiple billions of dollars of lost tax revenue, and that's not including increased costs for things like welfare/unemployment insurance. That's hardly a "glancing blow". So? Stating that I said things I didn't say is YOUR argument? NOW, all you have to do is tell ME if YOU were/are FOR or AGAINST the Harper Regime's "stimulous spending"? I've stated it multiple times on this board... I think that it may have been a waste to engage in the stimulus spending. But given the fact that the Liberals/NDP were also pushing for increased spending (and the original plan was to not have any spending) then I view the conservatives as "lesser of 2 evils". When does hypocracy count as being "fair and clear"? You criticize the Conservatives for the stimulus spending, but ignore the fact that the Liberals were going to do the exact same thing. Ummm, sorry, I thought I made it VERY CLEAR indeed... Nope, you didn't. You gave no figures, not details of what spending was wrong. Basically you said "this spending is wrong" and left it at that. Oh, and once again, you ignored the statements made by Kirton that the summit expenses were reasonable, and you also ignored the fact that a similar summit held by Chretien Cost almost as much on a per-country/per-day basis. Still doesn't tell us if/where money was wasted. Oh, and by the way, the article you quoted indicates why security costs in Canada are so much more than for conferences held in the U.S. or U.K. Ummm... first of all, you do realize that there are also advantages in infrastructure in holding it in Toronto? Its a large city (plenty of hotels and other facilities, good airline connections, etc.) Secondly, most of those 'security costs' would be necessary regardless of where the conference was held. Regular military air patrols (one of the security costs) would need to be done in either Toronto, Huntsville, or mudepile, NWT. Same with the need for police. (And when the Chretien government held its G8 summit, they did hold it in a smaller location, but there was still the need for security. I do find it ironic... you criticize the selection of Huntsville for the G8 because its too small, and then Toronto for the G20 because its 'too expensive'. Don't you think that any major city that's big enough to host something like the G20 is going to be expensive? What a COMPLETE LOAD of horse manure that is. Here's a little hint... just because you don't understand or agree with a point does not make it 'manure'. Oh my god! How will I ever survive knowing I lost all credibility with a hypocrite Liberal/NDP fan boy who spouts off on things like military technology when he doesn't know what he's talking about, and who can't even bother to read the articles he's posting when the actually contradict the point he's trying to make!!!! Well, i guess that's a difference between you and I... I don't think I ever saw you as ever being credible. Ah, where to begin... First off, a little word of advice... relying on Wikipedia is "proof" is a good way to get laughed at. At most it can serve for some basic background facts, but when you start using opinions stated in articles as evidence to support your statements you make yourself look foolish. Secondly, at no point did you ever contradict any of the points I made, either about Mulroney leaving with an Operating surplus, or Chretien being 'lucky' enough to inherit the conditions necessary to eliminate the deficit even if he did pretty much nothing. I do find your selection of quotes a little bizarre... Why should it matter if the "1993 election was a disaster"? That has nothing to do with whether Mulroney left with an operating surplus. And why bother with the quote regarding the early 1990s? If anything the fact that there was a global recession at the time should make Mulroney look even better, as he was able to end with an operating surplus despite economic problems in other countries (dealing with a longer global recession than Chretien ever did.) Actually there is a point in me responding. You see, you have illustrated that you are incapable of exhibiting rational thought. I doubt you will ever be able to do so. However, its quite possible that others (unaffected by "liberal fan boy syndrome") will be able to do so. Might mean more if it wasn't coming from someone who has: - Ignored statements in one of his very own references that contradict your own claims about G8/G20 expenses - Ignored the fact that Chretien ran a summit with almost identical costs (when considering length of conference/participants) - Exhibited either willful ignorance or shameless hypocracy by championing the Liberals "fiscal management" but ignoring the fact that they were planning on the exact same stimulus you seem to have been against - Showed a lack of understanding of the global military situation in the late-50s/early 60s - Illustrated that you don't understand military hardware when you claimed the F35C option was the 'best for Canada'

Nope, its not "nuff said", because once again, you are totally ignoring the fact that the use of them as the "best defense against soviet bombers" was not an issue anymore since bombers were no longer considered the major threat. Its like Canada building a wall to keep out the hordes of the Mongolian empire, even though Geingis Kahn has been dead for centuries and the threat of horse-riding warriors has long been replaced by tanks and guns.

Agreed, let's put this into FULL context... Budget projected deficit - $30 BILLION - Harper Regime stated deficit - $56 BILLION REAL DEFICIT spending by Harper Regime: $56 BILLION + $9 BILLION wasted and lost revenues (2% GST cut and other tax cuts) + $13 BILLION spending of the Liberal's "rainy day fund" (put in place for exactly the purpose of preventing deficit spending in "hard times") Ummm... do you know what the concept of "putting things into context" is? Remember that prior to the government going into deficit, the Conservatives were not going to engage in significant stimulus spending. It was the threat of a takeover by the Liberal/NDP coalition which caused them to do the stimulus spending. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html?ref=rss The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois......the accord's proposed multibillion-dollar stimulus package for the troubled economy... The opposition parties say they have lost confidence in the Harper government after last Thursday's economic update by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty failed to provide a stimulus package for Canadians. Mostly incorrect... Other than a "glancing blow" caused by our close economic ties to the US, Canada did NOT go into said "Global Recession"... Really? You might want to tell Statscan about that. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/04/15/statscan-mild-recession.html Statistics Canada said Canada did suffer through a technical recession — a 3.3 per cent drop in GDP over three quarters between the fall of 2008 and the summer of 2009. Yeah, things may not have been quite as bad here as they were in the U.S. or parts of Europe, but that does not mean that we were totally unaffected. We DID suffer... our exports dropped as foreign markets had less capital, uncertainty affected financial markets. This would have caused a loss of jobs, decrease in tax base, and increased expenditures on things like Unemployment insurance. But hey, what exactly does Statscan know? Easily answered... Ummm... But you didn't answer the question. All you did was quote someone else who says the don't know why it was so expensive. Actually, the rest of the article was very relevant. You just cut it out because it actually disproved your point. Summit expert John Kirton at the U of T, who helped produce the report on summit expenses, says the projected Canadian costs are reasonable...He said the estimated costs for last year’s G20 meetings in Pittsburgh and London do not reflect the higher investment the U.S. and Britain make in day-to-day military security compared with Canada. Here's a suggestion... when you quote an article, you might want to read through the entire article. Oh, and I wonder how well "shutting down the entire downtown" will work if they tried it in Toronto. Oh, and by the way, you never did address the fact that the Chretien government spent hundreds of millions staging a G8 conference that was shorter and had far fewer participants. Umm... no you don't. You like to nitpick, ignore history, and basically use any trick you can to make your party look good. Oh, and by the way, lying about the projected sizes of surpluses is also dirty pool, since it can facilitate money being diverted into projects without proper parlimentary discussion. Really? Examples please... When Mulroney left power, he left the government with an operating surplus. (i.e. they were taking in more than they were spending. It was only the debt payments that kept it from being a fiscal surplus.) Not only did the Chretien government inherit a government that had done a good job slowing government spending, they ended up taking power at a time when international interest rates were falling (thus reducing debt payment charges) and the global economy was exceptionally robust. Not only that, the free trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives increased exports (thus keeping our economy and government revenue strong), and the GST (which Chretien said he would scrap, but didn't) and other tax measures brought forward by the Conservatives didn't have a great effect until later. So basically, a monkey with half a brain would have ended up with a surplus. From: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=0a98cde7-25e8-4e9d-a34e-f85facbd731f By the time Tory finance minister Michael Wilson and Mulroney left office some nine years later, the federal government had an operating surplus and the deficit as a percentage of GDP had been reduced by one-third, despite the worldwide recession of 1990-91. In other words, were it not for the interest Canada had to pay on the gargantuan debt the Liberals had solely created to that point, Mulroney would have been running a surplus. Actually, I am familiar with the thread. In fact, I've even posted earlier in the thread's existence. I haven't bothered following up on it recently because people who oppose the F35 purchase have been totally unresponsive when questions are posed to them. Ummm... no. The F-35C is designed for Carrier operations. (Enhanced landing gear, folding wing tips, etc.) None of these would be of significant advantage to Canadian operations, thus it is not "far more suitable". Actually, electing a liberal government would 'ensure' nothing. We could end up in the same boat as we did when Chretien first canceled the helicopter plan, only to buy the same helicopters they originally purchased. Silly statement, at best... Not really. You've nitpicked, taken facts out of their historical context, and done everything you can to make "your party" look good and "the other guys" look bad. When you do that, anyone can find reasons to label a government as a "failure". Ummm, NO... One represented Canada's FUTURE in Military Aviation vs being forever FORCED into exactly this kind of debate about every Military Purchase... Ummmm... no. The arrow was not the "future in military aviation" because in that time period the "future" was in ICBMs. The Arrow would not have been useful in stopping ICBMS. So, we would have been left with a hundred planes that could fly fast, but were less effective in actual combat roles. Actually I have a lot of pride. That's why I favor policies that are libertarian in nature.

Yup, mighty big deficit. Not totally happy about that myself. However, a little context is valuable here. Much of that deficit was due to the global recession and the resulting stimulus.... When it was brought in, both the NDP and Liberal party were both pushing for increased spending, so we would have likely ended up in pretty much the same situation whether the Conservatives increased spending, or they held the line and let the Liberal/NDP coalition get in power. Ah yes, the G8/G20 summit. But I'm going to put forward the same challenge to you that I put forward to others... How exactly did they misspend money on the summit? Whenever I've asked that question, I can never get a straight answer. The fact is, summits like that are expensive. Its the cost of doing business in a world with complex global interactions. Unless you can point to something in particular the conservatives wasted money on (something that would have been an executive decision) then the only alternative would have been to withdraw from the G8/G20 (and suffer a decrease in our international influence as a result.) And keep in mind that the last time we hosted a G8 conference when Chretien was P.M., it cost around $200 million, and that was for a conference that was A: shorter, and B: had fewer countries. And the former Liberal government regularly incorrectly stated its budget surpluses for years. It doesn't excuse the Conservatives doing it, but it does put it into context. Again, sadly, not really significantly different from the actions of other parties. Yup they did. Welcome to politics. The Liberals did it when they were in power too. And I'm sure that whomever gets in power next will take credit for things this government does. Minor note.... The U.S. navy would be purchasing the F35C variant. Canada would be purchasing the F35A variant. Yup, its an expensive plane. Any 'cutting edge' military technology will be. Its a failure in so much as pretty much every government has been a failure, and every government in the future will be a failure. Ummm... the Arrow was scrapped because it was A: expensive, and B: would not be effective given changes in military strategy at the time (a change from long range bombers to missles would make interceptors less useful.) I find it ironic that you would label the F35 as a sign of 'failure', yet the canceling of another, similarly expensive (and possibly useless) piece of hardware as also a 'failure'. Both of which were continued by the Chretien government. Free trade has given us access to the U.S. markets, where we regularly enjoy huge trade surpluses. Most people think that selling Canadian products is a "good thing". And the GST? May be hated, but it greatly simplified our taxation system. Question... if Mulroney was "wrong" to sue Canada, then how come he actually won the lawsuit?

Cite your source please. While it might be inaccurate to say most Canadians don't know who Oda is, the number of people who do recognize her (and her errors) is only barely above a majority. In the poll released Friday, 56% of Canadians knew who Oda was, and only 54% could say why she was in trouble. That same poll of 1,002 adult Canadians turned up some interesting responses as to who people think Oda is. Respondents pegged Oda as the Tunisian prime minister, Egypt's president, Libya's president, a premier, the Liberal minister of culture, an NDP MP, the Green Party leader and a minister who wears dark glasses. ... Coletto's poll showed the controversy has had little effect on people's voting intentions. From: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/01/17450666.html Here's what I find ironic... in the U.S., Bush got criticized (and quite rightly I might add) for giving money to religious organizations involved in social work. (After all, they're pretty big on the whole separation of church and state down there.) Yet here in Canada, our own bureaucrats wanted to fund Kairos, who's composed largely of religious groups.

Actually, I think its actually an opt-out plan. People get enrolled automatically if their company doesn't offer a pension. They can withdraw from the plan if they want, but they have to be the ones to act to withdraw. Yes it has performed well. But then, so have a lot of other investments. If you compare the performance of the CPP investment portfolio with the TSE over a 5 year stretch (I found the data for 2003-2008) and add the yearly returns, you get: CPP: 46% TSE: 56% (Note that this comparison isn't perfect, as each of these has a different year end date, but its a pretty good guide line since I incorporated multiple years.) So, if you want a 'good investment', you're better off to invest in a good indexed fund based on one of the stock exchanges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#Performance http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_money/investing/article.jsp?content=20070124_101555_4368&ref=related