Layton getting hammered by reporters

[Smallc]

Our deficit would be twice what it is now under a PM Layton.

Of couse, you have no way to prove that.

[Shady]

The GST cut was unanimously criticized by economists as the worst possible thing the government could have done.

Complete nonsense. The GST is a regressive tax that hurts lower income Canadians the most. The worst possible thing the government could have done would have been to raise it. People keeping more of their own money is a good thing. Other than of course to Jack "money grows on trees" Layton. Because he knows he can spend it better than you can.

[August1991]

What a crock. Stephen Harper already squandered the gains by Martin and Chretien. Do you have any credibility?

The NDP have managed governments in Saskatchewan (Pop. 1 million).

They have tried to manage governments in BC and Ontario (once).

To say that the NDP is fiscally careful, and refer to Saskatchewan, is like saying that since my brother-in-law managed a corner store well, he can now manage a region of Wal-Marts. Well, when the NDP managed the Ontario government, they made a mess.

----

Last question: Is Layton a Saskatchewan NDP or is he Ontario NDP?

Jack Layton is no Roy Romanow.

[Smallc]

Complete nonsense. The GST is a regressive tax that hurts lower income Canadians the most.

That's a complete lie. Lower income Canadians get a rebate that covers their portion of the tax. The GST is not regressive.

The worst possible thing the government could have done would have been to raise it.

Income tax cuts would have been far better. People should have voted Liberal, I guess.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Smallc

[capricorn]

Conservatives: "He has no plan to fund any of his programs because his announced funding plans don't count!"

Your edit is noted.

[Harry]

There is so much right-wing BS floating around here

There has been NDP governments in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and possibly in the North as well, and none of these goverments have created such a financial mess as the Conservatives in particular, and the Liberals, who have put Canada into massive deficits and debt.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Harry

[cybercoma]

Complete nonsense. The GST is a regressive tax that hurts lower income Canadians the most. The worst possible thing the government could have done would have been to raise it. People keeping more of their own money is a good thing. Other than of course to Jack "money grows on trees" Layton. Because he knows he can spend it better than you can.

For every $100 someone spends it would cost them $2 more. The only people the GST cut makes a difference for are those spending thousands. Hint: That's not the lowest income Canadians.

So back to the point. You keep bringing up the gains made by Chretien and Martin being lost under Layton, but you flatly refuse to see that cutting the GST and spending like money is going out of style was something Harper did before the recession hit. Harper is not this fiscally responsible messiah that you seem to think he is. Add to that the fighter jets and a billion dollars for G20/G8. Come on. How can you even call yourself fiscally conservative and support that?

[jbg]

Layton is getting hammered by reporters in Yellowknife atm....Layton won't answer question regarding his candidate....

Looks like Layton is afraid of answering questions in Alberta.

Yet he may answer questions in Iqaluit or Regina. Edmonton and Yellowknife, maybe not.

[Smallc]

Add to that the fighter jets and a billion dollars for G20/G8.

Those are really non issues. No matter who was in, the G8/G20 would have happend and would have been expensive. The jets are going to be expensive, and they are going to be bought. I suppose the order could be smaller (and probably would be under the Liberals and NDP), but I'm not sure that's a good idea, and I'm not sure how much it will actually save.

[cybercoma]

Those are really non issues. No matter who was in, the G8/G20 would have happend and would have been expensive. The jets are going to be expensive, and they are going to be bought. I suppose the order could be smaller (and probably would be under the Liberals and NDP), but I'm not sure that's a good idea, and I'm not sure how much it will actually save.

Don't take that out of context. I'm talking about those things coupled with a reduction in revenues by giving people a measly 2% savings on the GST.

[RNG]

Those are really non issues. No matter who was in, the G8/G20 would have happend and would have been expensive. The jets are going to be expensive, and they are going to be bought. I suppose the order could be smaller (and probably would be under the Liberals and NDP), but I'm not sure that's a good idea, and I'm not sure how much it will actually save.

No, no, no. The Libs or the NDP will cancel the contract, wait five years, then do the same thing at twice the price. See H-101.

[Smallc]

Don't take that out of context. I'm talking about those things coupled with a reduction in revenues by giving people a measly 2% savings on the GST.

Okay, I understand what you were saying now. It seems to be right wing economics to believe that you can endlessly cut taxes and spend on pet projects.

[Smallc]

No, no, no. The Libs or the NDP will cancel the contract, wait five years, then do the same thing at twice the price. See H-101.

There is no contract. There is an MOU. The contract should have been tendered, and we shouldn't be getting the F-35. They are the best at some things, but they can't land in the north without parachutes, and not even then in heavy crosswinds. It's a failing idea. I supported it before. Now I don't.

[cybercoma]

Okay, I understand what you were saying now. It seems to be right wing economics to believe that you can endlessly cut taxes and spend on pet projects.

This is my argument about the Tories. I'm being entirely genuine when I say I supported them in the last couple elections. Not only did I want them to be more transparent and bring accountability to Ottawa, but I expected them to be fiscally Conservative and continue on the trajectory that Chretien and Martin had set. Instead we get a party that pays lip-service to fiscal responsibility, cuts taxes, but continues spending. They're simply putting everything on credit. That's not fiscal responsibility. At least I know exactly where the NDP stands. They're not going to say one thing and do another.

[Smallc]

At least I know exactly where the NDP stands. They're not going to say one thing and do another.

I disagree. I think they will. If they form government, they'll have advisors that will throw cold water of their more radical ideas. These people will come from the Manitoba NDP (those people will have a great deal of free time come fall, I think), the Nova Scotia NDP, and the civil service.

[August1991]

There has been NDP governments in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and possibly in the North as well...

The NDP government in Ontario was a disaster. The BC NDP governments little different.

Governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are little different from large cities. The NDP can possibly manage such smallish governments. But even there (for example, Toronto) even a Leftist Dennis Miller made a mess of things.

---

The better question is: Is Jack Layton and the federal NDP a rural/Saskatchewan-style NDP or is he/it an urban/Toronto/BC/Ontario-style NDP?

Looking at the programme, and the list of candidates, I think the answer is obvious.

Edited April 29, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

Governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan are little different from large cities.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Cities and provinces have to worry about completely different things. Also, Manitoba is the fifth most populous province with the sixth largest economy in the country. It's not Quebec, but it isn't exactly PEI either. For the record, Saskatchewan is the sixth most populous province with the fifth largest economy.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

And then there's things like this. I can't support what really seem to be outright lies.

[Handsome Rob]

There is no contract. There is an MOU. The contract should have been tendered, and we shouldn't be getting the F-35. They are the best at some things, but they can't land in the north without parachutes, and not even then in heavy crosswinds. It's a failing idea. I supported it before. Now I don't.

Can you cite that without a news article?

Something tells me there isn't an F-35 POH or demonstrated crosswind component chart floating around on bittorrent while it's still undergoing flight testing.

More than likely it's using a NACA 6 series airfoil like the F-22, in addition to a similar airframe. With the F-35's heavier wing loading, crosswind and short-field performance is more than likely better than the F-22.

[Smallc]

Can you cite that without a news article?

Without a news article? I read it on defence watch a couple of months ago, I think. It's what made me change my mind.

More than likely it's using a NACA 6 series airfoil like the F-22, in addition to a similar airframe. With the F-35's heavier wing loading, crosswind and short-field performance is more than likely better than the F-22.

Well we weren't buying the F-22, were we? The F-35A is non a carrier variant. There are many reasons we went for the F-18 over the F-16. One of the main reasons was the arctic.

[ToadBrother]

Of course it's flexible. All the goodies he promised are contingent on revenue from cap and trade, and increased taxes on corporations. His cap and trade program would only see billions in federal revenue after the 3 or 4 years required to set up a carbon credit/trading scheme, complete with a watchdog to prosecute the resulting corruption cases.

You do realize that even if, somehow, the NDP form a government, it's going to be a minority or a coalition, so it's not like most of the promises, even if they were completely rational, would be achievable.

And that goes for the Tories and Liberals as well. I can't quite figure out why anybody here is actually poking around in any of their platforms.

[August1991]

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Cities and provinces have to worry about completely different things. Also, Manitoba is the fifth most populous province with the sixth largest economy in the country. It's not Quebec, but it isn't exactly PEI either. For the record, Saskatchewan is the sixth most populous province with the fifth largest economy.

The Saskatchewan government has a budget of about $10 billion. The budget of the city of Toronto is about $6 billion.

Now then, which government budget has more discretionary spending? The Saskatchewan government budget includes health care and education.

But IMHO, it's more important to ask whether the federal NDP under Jack Layton is more like the Saskatchewan NDP or more like an Ontario/Toronto NDP?

----

La politique du pire est la pire des politiques. Perhaps. But at this point, I am curious to have a majority Layton government.

[punked]

The Saskatchewan government has a budget of about $10 billion. The budget of the city of Toronto is about $6 billion.

Now then, which government budget has more discretionary spending? The Saskatchewan government budget includes health care and education.

But IMHO, it's more important to ask whether the federal NDP under Jack Layton is more like the Saskatchewan NDP or more like an Ontario/Toronto NDP?

----

La politique du pire est la pire des politiques. Perhaps. But at this point, I am curious to have a majority Layton government.

I doubt the Budget of Sask is 10 billion the budget of NS is 9 billion.

Edited April 29, 2011 by punked

[punked]

I take it back I looked into it, the budget is 11 Billion. About twice as much as Toronto. Also it is 5 billion less then the Deficit the Liberals are running in Ontario right now. Funny to think a deficit is larger then the budget of a province like Sask.

Edited April 29, 2011 by punked

[Handsome Rob]

Without a news article? I read it on defence watch a couple of months ago, I think. It's what made me change my mind.

Google search only yields newspaper articles. There are no test results to be found, published limitations, or any other valid information.

Well we weren't buying the F-22, were we? The F-35A is non a carrier variant. There are many reasons we went for the F-18 over the F-16. One of the main reasons was the arctic.

I'm talking about the airfoil, not the aircraft. There is a lot of commonality between the two. Given the aerodynamics, combined with the F-35's greater wing loading, one would expect better crosswind performance, something I haven't seen any negative reports of.

There is no way to discuss landing rolls at various weights and temperatures without valid performance data.

The CF discussing the installation of a drag chute does not validate the inference that the aircraft isn't capable of landing on runways up there.