F-35 Purchase

[dre]

People so soon forget that I didn't support this government at all in the beginning, and they did some things that turned me off around 2008 - 2009. Somehow, me supporting their actions now makes me a partisan hack...more so than people who say they they decide how to vote by looking for the NDP beside a candidate's name.

Im the exact opposite. I thought the conservatives ran a pretty functional minority government, its once they had a majority that some particularly bad governmence started happening. C10, C30. This is some of the worst legislation in Canadian history. The doubling down on policies that have failed world wide, and bankrupted municipalities and governments. C30 got stopped by sheer luck, it was about to be passed without anyone even reading it it.

As far as your characterization of yourself its pretty good. Iv always respected you for being one of the less partisan people here, and for keeping a more open mind than some others do. But with all due respect, I think that has changed recently. You seem very intent on giving this government a pass on some of these things. C10 alone should be enough to cause severe dissatisfaction with the government, and Iv seen you mention that you dont like it. But mandatory prison terms for minor drug offenses is such a foul and idiotic policy that it should almost be a showstopper.

I sense you falling into to some of those familiar patterns. Hope Im wrong

[Shady]

The doubling down on policies that have failed world wide, and bankrupted municipalities and governments.

Which policies are those?

[dre]

Which policies are those?

Mandatory minimum sentences for recreational drug offenses comes to mind.

Edited April 13, 2012 by dre

[Smallc]

C10, C30.

I don't support those (parts of C10, or any of C30), and even phoned my MP over C30.

As far as your characterization of yourself its pretty good. Iv always respected you for being one of the less partisan people here, and for keeping a more open mind than some others do. But with all due respect, I think that has changed recently. You seem very intent on giving this government a pass on some of these things.

C10 alone should be enough to cause severe dissatisfaction with the government, and Iv seen you mention that you dont like it. But mandatory prison terms for minor drug offenses is such a foul and idiotic policy that it should almost be a showstopper.

I sense you falling into to some of those familiar patterns. Hope Im wrong

Just so you know, I'm an advocate for marijuana legalization...even though I've never used it myself. Don't get me wrong, there are things I don't like about this government. Just, someone please give me an alternative in 2015.

I have to say that I'm less happy with the Conservatives than I was last year. They don't spend money on things I support anymore (infrastructure and the military - this issue is important to me) and they seem to preoccupied with the base of their party. It's just that at current, I see them as the best managers. Maybe Mulcair will change my mind (although his coming out and practically proclaiming that every government job is sacred didn't give me hope there) or hopefully, the party that I used to be a member of will someday actually present me with an alternative.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Mandatory minimum sentences for recreational drug offenses comes to mind.

Such an absolutely stupid thing. Manitoba has jails that are already bursting at the seam.

[Shady]

Mandatory minimum sentences for recreational drug offenses comes to mind.

Well, I guess it depends on what one defines as a recreational drug offense (ie quantity possessed), and what one defines the minimum sentence as (one day, or one month, or one year, etc).

[dre]

Well, I guess it depends on what one defines as a recreational drug offense (ie quantity possessed), and what one defines the minimum sentence as (one day, or one month, or one year, etc).

I would define it as an offense involving recreation drugs I guess!

[Shady]

I would define it as an offense involving recreation drugs I guess!

That's not really defining it. Recreational drug use usually refers to a specific amount of drugs. Usually somebody caught with several kilograms doesn't qualifty as recreational use. Somebody with a small amount, using in their own home, really has no reason to worry. Plus, the police have no interest in those people anyways.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Shady

[punked]

That's not really defining it. Recreational drug use usually refers to a specific amount of drugs. Usually somebody caught with several kilograms doesn't qualifty as recreational use. Somebody with a small amount, using in their own home, really has no reason to worry. Plus, the police have no interest in those people anyways.

Then why are they illegal? If the police don't care, and the courts don't care then why even have that law on the books?

[dre]

I don't support those (parts of C10, or any of C30), and even phoned my MP over C30.

As far as your characterization of yourself its pretty good. Iv always respected you for being one of the less partisan people here, and for keeping a more open mind than some others do. But with all due respect, I think that has changed recently. You seem very intent on giving this government a pass on some of these things.

Just so you know, I'm an advocate for marijuana legalization...even though I've never used it myself. Don't get me wrong, there are things I don't like about this government. Just, someone please give me an alternative in 2015.

I have to say that I'm less happy with the Conservatives than I was last year. They don't spend money on things I support anymore (infrastructure and the military - this issue is important to me) and they seem to preoccupied with the base of their party. It's just that at current, I see them as the best managers. Maybe Mulcair will change my mind (although his coming out and practically proclaiming that every government job is sacred didn't give me hope there) or hopefully, the party that I used to be a member of will someday actually present me with an alternative.

Fair enough. I agree... once the liberal party completely imploded theres nowhere else for centrist swing voters like us to go besides Conservative or just stay home. I just stayed home. I also can see that some of your defensiveness of the Conservative party/agenda is driven by the fact theres so many attacks on it in this forum. Once I actually try to nail you down on these things your positions make sense and are not unreasonable. I still have that difference on opinion about whether the current economic climate is one where we should be spending a lot of money, but thats not a partisan thing at all, and mine is the minority position on that. Im definately more bearish on the economy than most people and economists. Iv been readying an awfull lot about macroeconomics for the last year though, and Im a bit nervous for sure. I dont believe that what is happening in the west is sustainable... all the super easy credit, all the easing and printing, super low interest rates for a prolonged ammount of time.

Opinions are like assholes though I guess

[Shady]

Then why are they illegal? If the police don't care, and the courts don't care then why even have that law on the books?

What are you referring to? Possessing several kilograms?

[punked]

I don't support those (parts of C10, or any of C30), and even phoned my MP over C30.

As far as your characterization of yourself its pretty good. Iv always respected you for being one of the less partisan people here, and for keeping a more open mind than some others do. But with all due respect, I think that has changed recently. You seem very intent on giving this government a pass on some of these things.

Just so you know, I'm an advocate for marijuana legalization...even though I've never used it myself. Don't get me wrong, there are things I don't like about this government. Just, someone please give me an alternative in 2015.

I have to say that I'm less happy with the Conservatives than I was last year. They don't spend money on things I support anymore (infrastructure and the military - this issue is important to me) and they seem to preoccupied with the base of their party. It's just that at current, I see them as the best managers. Maybe Mulcair will change my mind (although his coming out and practically proclaiming that every government job is sacred didn't give me hope there) or hopefully, the party that I used to be a member of will someday actually present me with an alternative.

There is the Populist Smallc I know and thought was gone.

[punked]

What are you referring to? Possessing several kilograms?

Possessing any is illegal. Check the law.

[dre]

That's not really defining it. Recreational drug use usually refers to a specific amount of drugs. Usually somebody caught with several kilograms doesn't qualifty as recreational use. Somebody with a small amount, using in their own home, really has no reason to worry. Plus, the police have no interest in those people anyways.

I thought recreational drug use was about using mind altering substances for enjoyment and recreation. Not so much about the ammount you use.

But from what I can tell reading C30 a person with 5 pot plants in their yard would do mandatory prison time. And for each year people like that are kept in prison, it will cost tax payers about 140K. So about 6-8 people have to work and pay taxes just to pay for each one of those prisoners. Not to mention the prisoner is no longer working an paying taxes either, and his family is now likely forced into poverty and the need for yet more taxpayer money.

We oughtta be following the example set by portugal which actually worked to reduce the burden of drug addiction on society and cut the number of addicts down by about 1/2.

[punked]

I thought recreational drug use was about using mind altering substances for enjoyment and recreation. Not so much about the ammount you use.

But from what I can tell reading C30 a person with 5 pot plants in their yard would do mandatory prison time. And for each year people like that are kept in prison, it will cost tax payers about 140K. So about 6-8 people have to work and pay taxes just to pay for each one of those prisoners. Not to mention the prisoner is no longer working an paying taxes either, and his family is now likely forced into poverty and the need for yet more taxpayer money.

We oughtta be following the example set by portugal which actually worked to reduce the burden of drug addiction on society and cut the number of addicts down by about 1/2.

The Portugal experiment was really eye opening.

[Shady]

Possessing any is illegal. Check the law.

I thought some possession was decriminalized? Regardless, if one uses at home, recreationally, they won't have any problems. It's if you leave your home, and possess more than a certain amount where harsher penalities kick in.

[Smallc]

There is the Populist Smallc I know and thought was gone.

Don't call me a populist....that's almost an insult.

[punked]

Don't call me a populist....that's almost an insult.

But it is true the things you swing outside the party line on are populist issues.

[Smallc]

But it is true the things you swing outside the party line on are populist issues.

Only because I consider them to be good ideas. I'm a pragmatist.

[punked]

Only because I consider them to be good ideas. I'm a pragmatist.

I get that but I love when you take the populist positions.

[Army Guy]

During a finance committee meeting on Nov. 17, 2010, members formally asked the government to provide documents that “outline acquisition costs, lifecycle costs, and operational requirements associated with the F-35 program and prior programs (CF-18).”

The key term? “Lifecycle costing,” something DND’s own costing handbook says is a way to calculate “total cost of ownership.” According to the guide, lifecycle costing includes the operations and maintenance budget. That O&M budget, it says, in turn should account for personnel costs, maintenance cost of equipment, and total operating costs for facilities and materials – among others.

)&M portion of the budget includes Pay for all members,all cost for all maintenance which includes parts,labor,any cost incured during maintence including out sourcing. and repair to parts such as engines etc...operations include any cost incured to include fuel, benifits such as field pay, claims, rentals, food, local purchase items, the list goes on...hence why it is the largest portion of the budget....i'd est well over 70 % of the budget thats alot of funds to be accounting for twice....and it would require a major review of DND's budget and how we do business...

SO according to your own link these items that DND has been asked to account for is being done twice, once during the procument phase for the entire predicted (guess) of the A/C life. and then once every year during the allotment of DND's budget, it is presented to the government for approval, here they approve of disapprove of DND's prediction of a years worth of O&M budget...as i said already it is the largest portion of the budget, which would mean bils are accounted twice and one would become free monies every year to be used as they seen fit...like more procument...

But now that the entire O&M, plus more is costed at the procurment phase that should no longer be nessicary, as it is already approved, according to the new rules, And i say NEW rules because this is the first procument project that they have been asked for or even given. As SmallC has already explained to you.

My entire piont in this debate is to show you it is in fact being accounted for twice, which is not good accounting , even a rookie accountant could tell you that....so it must be used for something else, and that is to mislead the tax payers and voters into rising up and crushing the F-35 because they have no other reason to smash this project....your on the ropes and now have to make up shit to support your cause.

[Army Guy]

Because the taxpayers don't have to pay the O&M costs?

Who do you think pays for it, it accounts for 70 % of DND's budget which is certainly is funded by the tax payers, in fact with these new rules it is accounted for twice, ance during the procument process , and once annually ....

[dre]

Who do you think pays for it, it accounts for 70 % of DND's budget which is certainly is funded by the tax payers, in fact with these new rules it is accounted for twice, ance during the procument process , and once annually ....

Its not being accounted for twice. These are just estimates. Its estimated that the total direct and indirect costs of the program will be X. This is valuable information for the taxpayer regardless of which budget this comes out of. And it doesnt matter if money is already budgeted. Tax payers are still going to have to pay for every penny.

[dre]

I thought some possession was decriminalized? Regardless, if one uses at home, recreationally, they won't have any problems. It's if you leave your home, and possess more than a certain amount where harsher penalities kick in.

Thats not how the new mandatory minimums work based on my reading. Like I said, if you have 6 pot plants in your yard you will do a mandatory prison term. Thats not even enough to supply your average recreational user.

These people are going to go to JAIL. And taxpayers are going to forced to pay 150k per year to incarcerate potentially millions of people, plust there will be less taxpayers.

This is sooooo incredibly stupid it boggles the mind. Do you really want to pay 150k per year to incarcerate a guy that had 6 pot plants to supply his dumb-ass habit?

This is an brutal attack on common sense and personal liberty. And the difference between SmallC and I on this issue, is that hes more pragmatic. He looks at some other positions the party takes, which he likes... And he kinda averages everything out. But I cant even go there. I dont trust a governement stupid enough to ratchet up the failed drug war to do ANYTHING. If I had a business I would not hire them, and as a voter I wont elect them.

I see the general thought patterns exposed by C10 and C30 as being SHOWSTOPPERS. I cannot support people who do these kind of things even if they do everything else right... or if the alternative is worse. Ill just stay homw and tune out. And ill cheat on my taxes and move as much of my economy underground as possible to avoid supporting a system that leaves me with these choices.

[Army Guy]

Its not being accounted for twice. These are just estimates. Its estimated that the total direct and indirect costs of the program will be X. This is valuable information for the taxpayer regardless of which budget this comes out of. And it doesnt matter if money is already budgeted. Tax payers are still going to have to pay for every penny.

That is not what everyone has been saying the new rules are the new accounting laws....therefore one would have assumed since it is law that this is what and how it is being accounted for, and if the number 25 bil is a BS number meaning it does not have anything to do with the true accounting of tax payers money, then why is so much fuss being made about it. The government needs to explain it in those terms, that the 25 Bil is a number that is arrived at by guessing, and has no true accounting meaning. it is just an est of how much this entire program will cost, it is not the true value, IN OTHER WORDS it's being used to scare tax payers into dumping the project, I can hardly wait to see the new ships cost est.

Yes, the tax payers do, they pay our 1.5 % of our GDP on defence, And those tax payers who have to risk there lifes and climb into the cockpit, to uphold our internal or foreign policy do they have a say where their money goes, I think not. For years we as Canadian have held the mighty dollar over lives, very rarely do we stop and think will this purchase save lives...instead the first question is what is it going to cost.