Canada's flawed military policies

Wild Bill · May 8, 2009

However, you keep saying that the Liberals are worse and that you hold your nose to vote Tory? I suppose that means the flagpoles are better.

Geez, you did it again!

Well, at least you're consistent. I think if we were playing poker it would be called a "tell". You only seem to do it when you don't have a good rebuttal. If you DO have a good rebuttal it always comes out well written and reasoned.

Care to bet some money?

jdobbin · May 8, 2009

Geez, you did it again!

I'm throwing it right back at you.

Well, at least you're consistent. I think if we were playing poker it would be called a "tell". You only seem to do it when you don't have a good rebuttal. If you DO have a good rebuttal it always comes out well written and reasoned.

Please. When you go about talking on how Conservatives are logical, show up at the polls, don't make emotional decisions, it lacks any basis on fact. It was Conservatives who angrily abandoned their party and put themselves in the wilderness throughout the 1990s. These were all emotional responses. Angry ones in fact.

When I hear that at least Harper is better than what came before, I don't know how that can be possibly be reasoned out. He has rejected many of the Reform principles, overspent, gone into deficit and in the last election when it looked like he should be able to kill the Liberals at their weakest, screwed up and had one of the poorest voter turn outs in history.

I certainly don't think it was just non-Conservatives who stayed at home.

Wild Bill · May 8, 2009

I'm throwing it right back at you.
Please. When you go about talking on how Conservatives are logical, show up at the polls, don't make emotional decisions, it lacks any basis on fact. It was Conservatives who angrily abandoned their party and put themselves in the wilderness throughout the 1990s. These were all emotional responses. Angry ones in fact.

When I hear that at least Harper is better than what came before, I don't know how that can be possibly be reasoned out. He has rejected many of the Reform principles, overspent, gone into deficit and in the last election when it looked like he should be able to kill the Liberals at their weakest, screwed up and had one of the poorest voter turn outs in history.

I certainly don't think it was just non-Conservatives who stayed at home.

So what's our alternative?

More Adscam? More Shawinigate? More HRDC? More canoe museums?

jdobbin · May 8, 2009

So what's our alternative?
More Adscam? More Shawinigate? More HRDC? More canoe museums?

Well, it looks like you made your choice. Deficits. UFO museums.

Army Guy · May 8, 2009

Time for our country to sit down and atleast talk about defense ...draw a White paper up and give our military a direction...and our government a path to follow for equipment purchases....

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Time for our country to sit down and atleast talk about defense ...draw a White paper up and give our military a direction...and our government a path to follow for equipment purchases....

And I'm sure the RCMP would like a bigger budget....and CSIS....and maybe the social and health transfers need increasing, I mean, we could always use more there, right? And what about that infrastructure deficit? I hope my point is getting through clearly....it should be.

There is never enough money....ever. This is true of government and private industry (that's why we have to wait for things, because R&D money is limited). The simple fact is, the government has many priorities and the military is going to have to make due with what they have....the 14 - 15th largest budget in the world.

Argus · May 9, 2009

And I'm sure the RCMP would like a bigger budget....and CSIS....and maybe the social and health transfers need increasing, I mean, we could always use more there, right? And what about that infrastructure deficit? I hope my point is getting through clearly....it should be.
There is never enough money....ever. This is true of government and private industry (that's why we have to wait for things, because R&D money is limited). The simple fact is, the government has many priorities and the military is going to have to make due with what they have....the 14 - 15th largest budget in the world.

I wonder how our spending on social programs ranks? Probably higher in the world than the military budget. I bet you and the rest of those on the left who despise the military would be outraged if we used that as an excuse to lower funding for welfare and health care. I bet we could slash payments for welfare in half and still come out able to say we have "the 15th largest" welfare budget in the world!

Smallc · May 9, 2009

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...l-spending.html

Of course, you'd be willing to give that up because YOU don't care about it. Guess what, Canadians seem to. Maybe we could cut public sector wages and give that money to the military...I'm sure you'd be willing to make the sacrifice, right?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Smallc

Smallc · May 9, 2009

The only way you're ever going to see a significantly higher military budget is if we raise taxes. That's it. There is no much that can be done, well, right now anyway, because the Conservatives don't seem to be able to find savings like Paul Martin did.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Smallc

Argus · May 9, 2009

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...l-spending.html
Of course, you'd be willing to give that up because YOU don't care about it. Guess what, Canadians seem to. Maybe we could cut public sector wages and give that money to the military...I'm sure you'd be willing to make the sacrifice, right?

I suppose you don't even see how hilarious it is that your response was to post a chart comparing our social spending to other countries BY GDP and not actual dollar amount? LOL

I didn't say I didn't value it. I simply was making the comparison.

Argus · May 9, 2009

The only way you're ever going to see a significantly higher military budget is if we raise taxes. That's it. There is no much that can be done, well, right now anyway, because the Conservatives don't seem to be able to find savings like Paul Martin did.

You mean like slashing health care, education and social welfare spending?

Smallc · May 9, 2009

You mean like slashing health care, education and social welfare spending?

That...and the efficiencies that he found when he became prime minister.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

I suppose you don't even see how hilarious it is that your response was to post a chart comparing our social spending to other countries BY GDP and not actual dollar amount?

You seem to discount every other type of comparison.

Argus · May 9, 2009

That...and the efficiencies that he found when he became prime minister.

Like it was more efficient to have less health care, education and welfare?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Argus

Argus · May 9, 2009

You seem to discount every other type of comparison.

No, I just pointed out that this is the best one to use - and you said it wasn't. So now you're using it apparently because... uhm it's good after all.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Actually, social service spending would better be measured on a per capita basis, as it serves individual people. Military spending can be measured by a variety of metrics. On one metric we do good, one ok, and one bad.

Smallc · May 9, 2009

Like it was more efficient to have less health care, education and welfare?

No, but it was more efficient to eliminate the deficit.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Smallc

Jerry J. Fortin · May 10, 2009

Debt servicing is a very real issue because it serves to detract from spending. The way around the problem is to either cut spending, or change the entire tax structure to translate into a larger and more accessible revenue stream.

Borg · May 10, 2009

That...and the efficiencies that he found when he became prime minister.

He was so efficient he became completely ineffective.

Borg

Smallc · May 10, 2009

He was so efficient he became completely ineffective.

And yet, until the untimely RCMP investigation, he was set to win the election.

Borg · May 10, 2009

And yet, until the untimely RCMP investigation, he was set to win the election.

Tells you a lot about the average canadian

Borg

Edited May 10, 2009 by Borg

Smallc · May 10, 2009

Tells you a lot about the average Canadian

Yes, guilty until proven innocent unfortunately.

Borg · May 10, 2009

Yes, guilty until proven innocent unfortunately.

In this case, thank God - he was as guilty as the crow with the shiny metal piece in his mouth.

Only the small players fell - there is no doubt he knew - he certainly did not live by the "Buck stops here"

But the courts did let him walk I admit

Couldn't have been happier to see his back when the dust settled - great day for Canada - and he will never be back

Borg

Edited May 10, 2009 by Borg

Smallc · May 10, 2009

Couldn't have been happier to see his back when the dust settled - great day for Canada - and he will never be back

He was never accused of anything in the Income Trust affair that we're talking about. It was Ralph Goodale, and he was found completely innocent. If you're talking about the sponsorship scandal, all you're doing is making assumptions that a judicial inquiry found to be incorrect. We hanged a good man...of that I have almost no doubt.

Argus · May 10, 2009

He was never accused of anything in the Income Trust affair that we're talking about. It was Ralph Goodale, and he was found completely innocent. If you're talking about the sponsorship scandal, all you're doing is making assumptions that a judicial inquiry found to be incorrect. We hanged a good man...of that I have almost no doubt.

Who, Goodale? The most self-righteous phony in federal politics over the past two decades? Good for what?

As minister, he carries the can if his department or anyone in it, or for that matter, any private sector individual contracted with his department releases information prior to the budget. That is what happened in this case and he bears the responsibility.