If you thought new fighters are expensive

[bush_cheney2004]

... If you defecit finance these planes we will still be paying for them long after they have rusted into the ground.

Oh no...bankruptcy! LOL!

[Army Guy]

It makes no sense to borrow money for this type of spending unless it really is emergency spending, and this isnt.

we did'nt borrow any money for these aircraft...

[dre]

we did'nt borrow any money for these aircraft...

Oh sorry... I thought we had a record budget defecit.

[Wilber]

Oh sorry... I thought we had a record budget defecit.

But why do you say that this money is being borrowed for military equipment? You could just as easily say it is being borrowed for medicare, old age security, MP's pensions or any other government expenditure.

[xul]

Not really, The US imports twice as much oil from Canada than it does from Saudi Arabia and more than from all the Arab countries combined.

Thank you for the information.

Sometimes I feel Canadian should show Bush a little more gratitude for "Bush's war" has made US counting on Canada more than ever.

[dre]

But why do you say that this money is being borrowed for military equipment? You could just as easily say it is being borrowed for medicare, old age security, MP's pensions or any other government expenditure.

If the budget isnt balanced then ALL new spending proposals add to the defecit. Doesnt matter where they are.

Unless this is vital emergency spending it should not happen while we have record defecits. Canadians would be better served by fiscal restraint at this point, and reigning in non-essential spending.

If you can objectively rank this purchase as more important than other things currently in the budget and eliminate other items to balance the budget that would be one thing... but nobody will do that. Theyll just keep spending magic money.

Pretty simple concept really... If youre spending way more each month than youre bringing in, you shouldnt be buying big ticket items unless you have no choice.

Edited November 9, 2010 by dre

[xul]

Even if this was true (it's not as described above), you would still be wrong...here's why:

Supported US locations in the Middle East

I think you have forgoten listing in the Green Zone in Iraq.

You give me the impression that Brezhnev should be the most welcomed Russian leader among East Europeans because he set up more such things in their countries in his time....

[Wilber]

If the budget isnt balanced then ALL new spending proposals add to the defecit. Doesnt matter where they are.

Unless this is vital emergency spending it should not happen while we have record defecits. Canadians would be better served by fiscal restraint at this point, and reigning in non-essential spending.

If you can objectively rank this purchase as more important than other things currently in the budget and eliminate other items to balance the budget that would be one thing... but nobody will do that. Theyll just keep spending magic money.

Pretty simple concept really... If youre spending way more each month than youre bringing in, you shouldnt be buying big ticket items unless you have no choice.

It is a simple concept. Anything you don't agree with is being paid for with borrowed money. Anything you do agree with, isn't.

[dre]

It is a simple concept. Anything you don't agree with is being paid for with borrowed money. Anything you do agree with, isn't.

Thats not what I said at all. I wouldnt want 16 billion dollars in ANY spending right now.

This is just basic economics... Tell me... if your monthly income was oustripped by your monthly expenditures to the point where you couldnt make the payments on debt you already carry, would you be buying big ticket items?

[Wilber]

Thats not what I said at all. I wouldnt want 16 billion dollars in ANY spending right now.

Any what spending? All spending is a question of priorities, you just don't agree with the priorities.

[Smallc]

Any what spending? All spending is a question of priorities, you just don't agree with the priorities.

I'm really thinking that you're not bothering to read what the other poster is saying. No new spending - none - unless absolutely necessary. I would say though, that under that, the fighter purchase is OK, as it's coming from future DND procurement budgets.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

and you'll still find evidence of cut backs today, in regards to new contracts being cut,

You'll find no such thing. You may find fund transfers (from project to project, such as from CCV to TAPV), you may find currency valuation adjustments (such as in the case of JSS), or you may find price caps, such as in the case of AOPS.

[Wilber]

I'm really thinking that you're not bothering to read what the other poster is saying. No new spending - none - unless absolutely necessary. I would say though, that under that, the fighter purchase is OK, as it's coming from future DND procurement budgets.

I've read it. If your car falls apart and you have to have one to get to work, you get another car. If your water heater craps out, you get another one. You may have to forgo something else or go into hock for awhile to get it but you have no choice. Same goes for military equipment except you just can't go to the store and buy it. You have to plan years ahead. What is absolutely necessary is in the eye of the beholder.

[Army Guy]

Oh sorry... I thought we had a record budget defecit.

We've had record budget defecits since 1975.....And yet we continued on like there was no tommorrow. And i get your piont, but these purchases have already been taken into account in the Budgets, so they don't create negs, or defecits.

Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975 when it began to explode; growing for the next 12 years at more than 20% per year. It broke the $100-billion mark in 1981 and the $200-billion mark in 1985. While the growth slowed in 1988, our federal debt continued to climb, breaking $300-billion in 1988, $400-billion 1992, and $500-billion in 1994. It peaked in 1997 at $563-billion.

Over the past decade it had slowly declined to $458-billion in 2008. Now this has all changed. Our federal debt grew by $5.8-billion in 2008-09, by $55.4-billion in 2009-10 and is expected to grow by $45.4-billion in 2010-11. Further, it's expected to grow through at least 2014-15. In just three years all the debt repayment of the past eight years will be wiped out.

Canada's debt re-passed the $500-billion mark at 4:55:46 AM on December 2, 2009.

[Army Guy]

You'll find no such thing. You may find fund transfers (from project to project, such as from CCV to TAPV), you may find currency valuation adjustments (such as in the case of JSS), or you may find price caps, such as in the case of AOPS.

Bullshit. Take a look at the orginal contracts the government put out on their first announcements and tell me they have not been slashed or cut back...Look at the Lav project it went from purchasing New LAV H to repairing what we have now, The CH-47F helo purchase was cut from it's orginal amount to 16 and it's being looked at once again. You say funding is being transfered from project to project, such as the CCV and TAPV, is bullshit, CCV are expensive and expensive to operate, there fore cut back in favour of a wheeled TAPV or Armoured car...it was a governmantal decision, not DND one in the end it is a cut or slashed contract.

I like the Currency Valuation adjustment...on the JSS, from 3 to 2 , maybe even down to 0ne. I call it slashing a contract reducing the number because there is not enough money to purchase everything...which is fine...but it still a contract amendment, and the orginal QTY DND asked for was for the minimum amount needed to carry out the tasks assigned by our government...If there is not enough funds then cut back on the tasks or reassign how things are paid for...

[Smallc]

Bullshit. Take a look at the orginal contracts the government put out on their first announcements and tell me they have not been slashed or cut back...Look at the Lav project it went from purchasing New LAV H to repairing what we have now,

The LAV H isn't a real product. We'll end up with something similar in the end. The project was really split into three: the LAV III upgrade (not repair), the TAPV, and the CCV.

The CH-47F helo purchase was cut from it's orginal amount to 16 and it's being looked at once again.

The military did that, not the government. They only needed 15...and the number is not being looked at. The deal is signed.

You say funding is being transfered from project to project, such as the CCV and TAPV, is bullshit, CCV are expensive and expensive to operate, there fore cut back in favour of a wheeled TAPV or Armoured car...it was a governmantal decision, not DND one in the end it is a cut or slashed contract.

It's a DND decision. They want more of the TAPV than even the options allowed for. There will be no exercise of options for CCV. There will still be over 100 of the CCV and somewhere over 700 TAPV. Nothing was slashed...and the money we're talking about has nothing to do with the operating budget.

I like the Currency Valuation adjustment...on the JSS, from 3 to 2 , maybe even down to 0ne.

From 3 to 2 (maybe) with no cut in total dollars. There has been no talk of one, and you're making that up. Since we'll probably be buying the Berlin class and modifying it only slightly, there's no reason to believe that the option for 3 will not be exercised.

If there is not enough funds then cut back on the tasks or reassign how things are paid for...

That's exactly what's being done. The JSS of today is nothing like the JSS of 5 years ago.

[Smallc]

We've had record budget defecits since 1975

What in the world are you talking about?

[Army Guy]

The LAV H isn't a real product.

The Lav-H is a real product, introduced as a concept veh by General Dynamics Land Systems- Canada,one in which DND was looking at purchasing. It was this portion of the project that was canceled.

CASR

We'll end up with something similar in the end. The project was really split into three: the LAV III upgrade (not repair), the TAPV, and the CCV.

Update: 09 July 2009 – $1B has been announced for LAV III upgrades (550 LAVs with an option for 80 more). This upgrade is to include: drivetrain, weapons systems, and armour. This upgrade may include LAV-H elements but new-build LAV-Hs are not included in this buy.

The Upgrade and LAV -H are not the same vehs, and while they may have simlarities the LAV -H is the better veh by far.

The CCV porject although very similar to the LAV project is a project on it's own. The Close Combat Vehicle Project is DND's attempt to procure a new armoured vehicle type capable of keeping pace with planned Leopard 2A4/'6s of the Tank Replacement Program ( TRP ).

What you meant to say was the 5 Bil funding was for 3 separate projects, Lav upgrade , the CCV project and the TAPV which is really another 2 projects jamed together (light armoured recce veh or Coyote replacement) and the (armoured patrol veh to replace the RG -31.

Update: 09 July 2009 – as a part of a $5B announcement for LAV III upgrades and new armoured vehicle purchases, 200 TAPV-Recce are

to be bought to replace Coyotes. It's not clear whether the TAPV-Recce (part of a larger order of 500 TAPV) elipses the old LARV Project.

The military did that, not the government. They only needed 15...and the number is not being looked at. The deal is signed.

"Your right" it was the Military, according to a AOG report it states "due in part to poor decision making within DND" the number was cut, Since the orginal contract, the orginal intent was to have Chinnoks based in 3 locations through out Canada, but that has since changed and now only one location will get all the chinnoks.

It's a DND decision. They want more of the TAPV than even the options allowed for. There will be no exercise of options for CCV. There will still be over 100 of the CCV and somewhere over 700 TAPV. Nothing was slashed...and the money we're talking about has nothing to do with the operating budget.

No it's a governments decision, 5 Bil was all they alotted for the new Armoured vehs, DND had to work within that , hence why the LAV-H buy was cancelled, the TAPV porject was a combination of 2 projects, and to fullfill them over 700 vehs were required, because the funding is not available those projects were pared down, why is that so hard to see.

The CCV project when orginally announced was to outfit the Western Brigade (heavy Brig)complete with CCV, plus give each other Inf BN one companies worth of heavy fighting vehs. That porject has been changed now only selceted Bn's will get the CCV and the Western Brig will have thier numbers crunched. So how can you say the numbers were not slashed...The main reason these numbers were so high in the first place was to ensure each of the Inf Bn's , and other users of the LAV would have the vehs they needed to operate with,

you do the numbers there are 9 INF BN's currently plus well over 100 LAV's assigned to other Combat arms users...each INf BN's requires over 60 Lav's for 3 Companies worth of vehs, these numbers do not include any LAV's currently in Afghan or what is in War reserve, ...there are Inf Bn's with no LAV's at all, and the avg BN has only one companies worth....Hence why they need the additional vehs to make up the shortages.

That's exactly what's being done. The JSS of today is nothing like the JSS of 5 years ago.

The orginal concept of the JSS was a combination of serveral ships, LPD, and AOR, that not cutting the taskings thats combining 2 different ships into one to save money...The Navy has said on serveral occasions this is not what they wanted, but rather a AOR replacement...And your right Industry has already said it could not build a ship with DND's specs for the 2.6 Bil mentioned...

The second go-round is listed as a C$ 2.6 billion project, though currency strength would offset some of the $300 million reduction. So would the revised plan of buying 2 ships, with an option for a 3rd.

You had mentioned Currency offsetting, but it's not going to make up for the difference in cost so one ship was dropped, which means it was slashed from the orginal contract. And now that industry has said they could not build them for the 2.6 bil, there has been talk of cutting it to one ship.

[Army Guy]

What in the world are you talking about?

Since 1975 our deficit has been at record levels steadily climbing until it's record level today. The piont being since 1975 we have been having record levels of deficit, and rarely has that been a show stopper for any major spending.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Since 1975 our deficit has been at record levels steadily climbing until it's record level today. The piont being since 1975 we have been having record levels of deficit, and rarely has that been a show stopper for any major spending.

Isn't that a sad commentary on Canadian governments!

[Smallc]

Since 1975 our deficit has been at record levels steadily climbing until it's record level today.

I'm sorry, but I think you missed something like the last 15 years.

[Army Guy]

I'm sorry, but I think you missed something like the last 15 years.

Really, in 1998 our deficit had risen to it's highest 563 Bil, , during the next 10 years it had shrunk to 458 Bil. in 2008/09 it grew 5.8, then 2009/10 by 55.4 bil and this year it is expected to grow another 45.4 bil....and expected to grow until 2014

And while your tech right during those 10 years we were not at record levels, we were still 458 bil in debt, and while we were more fiscal responsiable with our money we did not stop large capital spending.

[dre]

We need to follow the British example, and stop spending magic money we dont have.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20101020/ts_csm/333514

[Saipan]

Is it really past Nov 17 2010 12:36 AM ?

Whatever happened to this Forum again

[Smallc]

Really, in 1998 our deficit had risen to it's highest 563 Bil

That's the debt, not the deficit. They are two different things.

And while your tech right during those 10 years we were not at record levels, we were still 458 bil in debt, and while we were more fiscal responsiable with our money we did not stop large capital spending.

It's a good thing we didn't too. That would be completely irresponsible. If you own money on a car, do you not fix your roof until it's paid off? Debt is a part of life. Ours is far from out of control, and as a percentage of GDP is very manageable (unlike in the early 90s). Our economy is much larger, and that makes all the difference. That said, we can't allow deficits and debt growth to continue. That would be irresponsible as well.