Federal Budget 2012

[Smallc]

I will gladly stand corrected if you provide your sources………

I was reading a couple of other articles that interpreted the language differently. I think they may be right with their interpretation.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/29/stealth-budget-cuts-in-defence

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/jobs/6380934/story.html

[Guest Derek L]

I was reading a couple of other articles that interpreted the language differently. I think they may be right with their interpretation.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/29/stealth-budget-cuts-in-defence

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/jobs/6380934/story.html

The Defence Department also may look to sell or otherwise dispose of some of the property it currently holds in different parts of the country and change the way it purchases equipment.

On that front, the government is taking $3.54 billion it was planning to spend over the next seven years on military vehicles and other items and saving it for a future date. This largely reflects delays in a number of projects.

The devil will be in the details……..Shall I revert back to 1987 and subsequent years in which other big ticket items were “pushed back” to a later date………..The Government hasn’t planned to start spending JSF money for several years so I’ll assume this won’t be affected, but it if it delays current funding requirements for ongoing projects, I’m forced to asked what projects are being “pushed back”?

[Smallc]

The devil will be in the details……..Shall I revert back to 1987 and subsequent years in which other big ticket items were “pushed back” to a later date………..The Government hasn’t planned to start spending JSF money for several years so I’ll assume this won’t be affected, but it if it delays current funding requirements for ongoing projects, I’m forced to asked what projects are being “pushed back”?

It doesn't seem like money for the NSPS is being pushed back either, from the statement. My guess? TPAV, CCV, and MilOTS trucks. I don't think the government is planning to use the ground forces in a nay large role going forward.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

It doesn't seem like money for the NSPS is being pushed back either, from the statement. My guess? TPAV, CCV, and MilOTS trucks. I don't think the government is planning to use the ground forces in a nay large role going forward.

So you think the army is just going to “walk” to work? Those are replacements of already existing capabilities and needs, with clear requirements………AOPS is not cut from the same cloth.

[madmax]

It will only get worse for the younger generation.

We'll be paying for the boomers the rest of our lives only to have the services cut for ourselves.

Thats nonsense but its exactly what the government would be happy to have you believe.

[madmax]

You and I know that this won't happen.

He's obviously pissed that by 2015 the OAS issue will be as useless an attack took as In and Out.

Comparing moving OAS back 2 years cannot be compared to a Fraudlent Act by the Conservatives?

[Smallc]

So you think the army is just going to “walk” to work? Those are replacements of already existing capabilities and needs, with clear requirements………AOPS is not cut from the same cloth.

I'm just going by the wording of the statement....but who knows what they really meant. Maybe the army will just keep the older, more maintenance intensive stuff for now?

[Guest Derek L]

I'm just going by the wording of the statement....but who knows what they really meant. Maybe the army will just keep the older, more maintenance intensive stuff for now?

You think so? With requirements for replacements by all three elements, you really think DND is going to add capabilities at this time?

[dre]

It doesn't seem like money for the NSPS is being pushed back either, from the statement. My guess? TPAV, CCV, and MilOTS trucks. I don't think the government is planning to use the ground forces in a nay large role going forward.

But thats IS our role.

[Smallc]

But thats IS our role.

?

[dre]

It will only get worse for the younger generation.

We'll be paying for the boomers the rest of our lives only to have the services cut for ourselves.

Youre half right and half wrong. It WILL get worse for the younger generation but the real problem is the generation that came AFTER the boomers. Generation USELESS. Us.

[dre]

THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THAT, BUT MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING LONGER.

But we already spend a larger percentage of our lives working than we have in the past.

[Smallc]

But we already spend a larger percentage of our lives working than we have in the past.

Are we? How? People used to die early, and start work in their mid teens.

[dre]

?

Why the question mark? Providing ground troops is what Canada does. We use them around the world in a variety of different conflicts. In the modern nation building era countries willing to commit real boots on the ground are few and far between, and Canadians go in and do the dirty jobs that nobody else wants any part of.

[Guest Derek L]

But thats IS our role.

Clearly, that line of thinking is proven wrong by the lack of appetite of the citizens of Western Democracies to “nation build”, keep the Peace or make it……….The future is a return to the past: Gunboat Diplomacy…….I advocated this approach in several threads last summer and found it a welcome surprise by the Obama administration’s planned policy and targeted defence cuts that will see the vast majority of savings born at the expense of the Army, well sparing the Navy and Air Force (relatively speaking).

[stopstaaron]

I am okay with the budget, there really isn't too much I disagreed with

[Guest Derek L]

Why the question mark? Providing ground troops is what Canada does. We use them around the world in a variety of different conflicts. In the modern nation building era countries willing to commit real boots on the ground are few and far between, and Canadians go in and do the dirty jobs that nobody else wants any part of.

Yeah, we sure showed ‘em in Vietnam, the liberation of Kuwait, Somalia, Rwanda, the FRY and Iraq……….And don’t forget Darfur.

[dre]

Are we? How? People used to die early, and start work in their mid teens.

Yes we are. By far. 1/2 of Canadians never used to work at ALL. Now the majority of families need two incomes just to make ends meet. This is just the natural progression of that... they wont be happy until we have to work until we are 80 or 90.

I pay a shitload of money into that pension, and I should be able to retire when I want to. Its my god damn money and they FORCE me to pay into it. I dont even plan on retiring in this country, so how am I supposed to get all my money back?

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/auto/diagramme-chart/stg2/c_3_19_1_1_eng.png?20110908121329291

We work nearly 20 percent more than we did in 1970... and our productivity has gone through the roof even though wages have been stagnant and the economy has been shitty for workers.

Bumping up the retirement age is simply the last bastion of crappy government that cant manage finance. Its really nothing more than stealing money. The more they bump back that age, the less chance there is I will ever collect what I paid in.

Edited March 30, 2012 by dre

[dre]

Clearly, that line of thinking is proven wrong by the lack of appetite of the citizens of Western Democracies to “nation build”, keep the Peace or make it……….The future is a return to the past: Gunboat Diplomacy…….I advocated this approach in several threads last summer and found it a welcome surprise by the Obama administration’s planned policy and targeted defence cuts that will see the vast majority of savings born at the expense of the Army, well sparing the Navy and Air Force (relatively speaking).

The lack of appetite for nation building??? Did you just live through the same decade I did?

[cybercoma]

The problem with "wages" is that it doesn't consider all the different types of compensation workers used to get. Fact is they used to get much better pensions and other benefits. These are no longer part of their compensation package, but they're also not included in the calculation of "wages." So, people are making considerably less than they used to, while productivity is up. The situation is much more dire than those numbers show; however, I've yet to see anyone attempt to calculate over time overall labour compensation.

[Guest Derek L]

The lack of appetite for nation building??? Did you just live through the same decade I did?

I sure did, and my younger brother had two all expense paid trips to the dirt box……..Would you consider Afghanistan a “win”? Will our efforts their have lasting effects, 5, 10, 20 years from now? After ten years, what was the opinion of the mission by many Canadians? Do you think the Canadian public would be willing to spend billions of dollars, to say the loss of life, in another shithole anytime soon?

-To add, perhaps we should carry one this line in a new thread, so as not to derail the budget thread.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Derek L

[dre]

I sure did, and my younger brother had two all expense paid trips to the dirt box……..Would you consider Afghanistan a “win”? Will our efforts their have lasting effects, 5, 10, 20 years from now? After ten years, what was the opinion of the mission by many Canadians? Do you think the Canadian public would be willing to spend billions of dollars, to say the loss of life, in another shithole anytime soon?

Youre ignoring how Afghanistan happened... Nobody came to Canadians and asked if we wanted a war that would last more than a decade. They always lie to us, and grossly underestimate whats involved. Afghanistan was supposed to take a couple of years. And we are always stupid enough to keep believing them. Theyll invoke the right boogeymen (terrorism!), and theyll say that "if we dont fight em over there, well have to fight em over here". And they appeal to our sense of humanity and show us images of people suffering.

We eventually WILL stop doing all this idiotic world policing, but only when we are FORCED to stop for economic reasons.

But yes... we will be in another shithole as soon as theres a chance for us to BE in one. The current government was FURIOUS that we werent in Iraq as well. They dont think we do ENOUGH policing and nation building.

And no I dont consider it a win at all. Its extremely stupid behavior but its just what we do, and I dont see it changing until we simply can no longer pay for it anymore, and thats still 10 or 15 years out.

Edited March 30, 2012 by dre

[stopstaaron]

Would you consider Afghanistan a “win”? Will our efforts their have lasting effects, 5, 10, 20 years from now?

No. No.

[Smallc]

Why the question mark?

Because I didn't understand what you said...

Seriously though, I don't think there is an appetite for boots on the ground fighting, even if we send boots to certain other missions.

[dre]

BTW...

OTTAWA — A new study says Canadians are working longer into what were once their retirement years.

Statistics Canada reports that a 50-year-old worker in 2008 could expect to stay in the labour force 3.5 years longer than they would have in the mid-1990s.

The study estimates the number of years a 50-year-old worker can expect to work before retiring, if retirement rates of a given year prevail.

The report says older workers have been increasingly delaying retirement since the mid-1990s.

In 2008, an employed 50-year-old could expect to work another 16 years, or about 3.5 years longer than workers of the same age in the mid-1990s.

Canadians are already retiring 3.5 years later than they did in 1990... So the claim that we need to change the retirement age due to life expectancy is really quite a sham.

In other words... the retirement age has already been effectively pushed back, more than life expectancy has increased.