More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[cybercoma]

It's pretty bad when the National Post runs a story on the Conservative government's fiscal incompetence. It seems the Department of Defence can't explain why it spent $2.8 billion more in fiscal year 2012 than the previous year. In March, the final month of the fiscal year, they spent 55% more than the year before. So the Tories have been hacking and slashing spending, but the DoD is going on a spending spree. Meanwhile, Parliament can't find out where the hell the money is going because nobody wants to give any answers. Where's the promised accountability and transparency? Is this the type of fiscal management we can expect for the next 3 years? Mark my words, whatever is going on with the DoD as it pertains to this, procurement, and the F-35s is going to make adscam look like pocket change. It's going to make the airbus scandal look like a pittance.

[Jack Weber]

"Unabashedly Patriotic"

Welcome to the new reality...

[August1991]

GAGETOWN CFB, NB, June 8, 2012 /CNW/ - Textron Systems Canada Inc., a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, today announced that it has been selected by the Canadian government for the Canadian Forces Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program. The contract provides that the Textron TAPV Team, led by Textron Systems Canada, together with Textron Marine & Land Systems and Rheinmetall Canada, will manufacture 500 vehicles, with an option for up to 100 more.

The TAPV contract has a value of $603.4 million CAD, excluding government sales tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST), with an additional five-year in-service support contract of $105.4 million CAD, excluding GST/HST. The first vehicle is scheduled to be delivered to the Canadian Army in July 2014 and the last delivery is scheduled for March 2016.

Link

Incompetence is one issue. The choice of how to spend the money is another.

---

Quebec estimates that it will have about 160,000 university students for the foreseeable future. The Quebec government wants to raise annual tuition fees by about $1000 - or about $160 million.

And as a society, we are suffering the consequences of such choices.

Do the math.

Edited June 9, 2012 by August1991

[Guest Derek L]

Link

Incompetence is one issue. The choice of how to spend the money is another.

---

Quebec estimates that it will have about 160,000 university students for the foreseeable future. The Quebec government wants to raise annual tuition fees by about $1000 - or about $160 million.

And as a society, we are suffering the consequences of such choices.

Do the math.

Perhaps those Quebec University students should drive North West to Mirabel and apply for manufacturing jobs………..Bell Textron (a Former Employer of mine) will be looking for skilled workers for years…….I’m honestly surprised General Dynamics (Southern Ontario) didn’t get a sniff for TAPV…….Well good for Quebec and Bell I suppose

And Cyber, What DoD spends is not a concern of Canadian taxpayers (It’s DND)

As for the spending overall and your comparison with the Students, well I’d rather my limited tax dollars spent to help ensuring the next time a Canadian Government sends our 18-25 year olds overseas they’re in a mine protected vehicle as a opposed to soft skin Iltis jeeps (Built in Quebec), versus ensuring Quebec’s 18-25 year old students continually having a heavily subsidized education in the “Arts”…..

[August1991]

Perhaps those Quebec University students should drive North West to Mirabel and apply for manufacturing jobs………..Bell Textron (a Former Employer of mine) will be looking for skilled workers for years…….I’m honestly surprised General Dynamics (Southern Ontario) didn’t get a sniff for TAPV…….Well good for Quebec and Bell I suppose...

Why?

As for the spending overall and your comparison with the Students, well I’d rather my limited tax dollars spent to help ensuring the next time a Canadian Government sends our 18-25 year olds overseas they’re in a mine protected vehicle as a opposed to soft skin Iltis jeeps (Built in Quebec), versus ensuring Quebec’s 18-25 year old students continually having a heavily subsidized education in the “Arts”…..

When they go abroad, we can pay for this.

In the meantime, IMHO, our federal government can better spend this taxpayer money, this $160 million.

Canada is a condo association.

But it's also a civilized society.

[Guest Derek L]

Why?

Isn’t there currently a glut of those with degrees in Basket Weaving and 19th century Women’s studies?

When they go abroad, we can pay for this.

In the meantime, IMHO, our federal government can better spend this taxpayer money, this $160 million.

Canada is a condo association.

But it's also a civilized society.

Only if you agree that your local Fire Department can purchase it’s trucks only once your Neighbour’s house starts burning…..

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

~George Orwell

Perhaps we can afford a few hundred mine protected vehicles so those rough, young men and women, upon returning from committing violence in our names don’t require the aid of a Prosthesis....

[dre]

well Id rather my limited tax dollars spent to help ensuring the next time a Canadian Government sends our 18-25 year olds overseas theyre in a mine protected vehicle as a opposed to soft skin Iltis jeeps

Why are we wasting these peoples lives overseas in the first place? If you care about their lives you would do a lot more to help them by opposing all this ill fated, and idiotic world policing, then making the skin on the jeep a little bit thicker.

Perhaps we can afford a few hundred mine protected vehicles so those rough, young men and women, upon returning from committing violence in our names don’t require the aid of a Prosthesis....

In WHOS name? Canadians dont even want them over there. They arent doing jack shit in my name, theyre just wasting my money on crap that doesnt even make us safer or benefit us in any way shape or form.

Edited June 9, 2012 by dre

[Guest Derek L]

Why are we wasting these peoples lives overseas in the first place? If you care about their lives you would do a lot more to help them by opposing all this ill fated, and idiotic world policing, then making the skin on the jeep a little bit thicker.

In WHOS name? Canadians dont even want them over there. They arent doing jack shit in my name, theyre just wasting my money on crap that doesnt even make us safer or benefit us in any way shape or form.

I’m sorry, but I live in the realm of reality and Canadians have been “going overseas” for decades, regardless of the given political party in power……….Your sentiments, though noble in intent are fallacy and are devoid of mankind’s true nature.

You come up with a realistic idea on how to end all violence, you be sure to let me know…….

I have to laugh though, I’ve got a picture from my younger brother from his first tour over in the Dirt Box. You see, he’s in the Armoured Regiment, and not two year prior to going over, the then MND and CDS announced how future conflicts would not require heavily armoured vehicles, but yet there he went in his 70s vintage Leopard tank when it was found that a 14 year old can launch a jeep into the air with 155mm artillery shell and a cell phone triggered donator.

So here he is in his rapidly aging tank, with a hydraulic controlled turret and no AC…..In this picture my brother with his loader and gunner (both in their early 20s) have taken a digital thermometer inside the turret, leaving both hatches open and the temperature reads 52C. My two thoughts, shit is that hot and when we do, as we always have and will continue to do so, send our men and women overseas, it should be with the best possible equipment that money can buy and that it will ensure that they come.

People very much have a right to complain, but I’m sorry, when a bunch of 18-20 something’s are complaining about having to pay a few thousand dollars more for their education, they’ll garner little sympathy from me.

[dre]

I’m sorry, but I live in the realm of reality and Canadians have been “going overseas” for decades, regardless of the given political party in power……….Your sentiments, though noble in intent are fallacy and are devoid of mankind’s true nature.

You come up with a realistic idea on how to end all violence, you be sure to let me know…….

Theres quite a few countries that dont waste their money on this kind of bullshit.

And I never said anything about ending all violence. I just dont care if people want to fight... Let em have at her! But dont waste my money on trying to stop them, especially when it just creates more problems.

[August1991]

I’ve got a picture from my younger brother from his first tour over in the Dirt Box. You see, he’s in the Armoured Regiment, and not two year prior to going over, the then MND and CDS announced how future conflicts would not require heavily armoured vehicles, but yet there he went in his 70s vintage Leopard tank when it was found that a 14 year old can launch a jeep into the air with 155mm artillery shell and a cell phone triggered donator.

When will your younger brother go abroad next?

And what will my younger brother have to pay to go to university?

-----

$700 million for tanks, or $700 million for schools/students? Is this even a question?

On this question, Stephen Harper once again appears to be a blockhead - as many Canadians (French/English) fear/suspect/know.

If Harper is not careful, Canadians are simply waiting for a reasonable/alternative federal political leader.

If Harper thinks that he is Mackenzie King/Maurice Duplessis - if he thinks that incremental conservatism will work, Harper is sorely mistaken. This is the 21st century.

-----

To his credit, Harper now faces Mulcair (a provincial cabinet minister) and likely Bob Rae (a once provincial PM). As I often argue here, regionalism drives Canada's federal politics - not ideology. (If you want to understand the EU or even the US, apply the same idea.)

Canadians identify Mulcair and Rae as regional representatives - willing to deal with other regions. And that's how Canadian voters view Harper. But I fear that Stephen Harper just doesn't understand this; he believes in "incremental conservatism".

As Woody Allen or Brian Mulroney would say, Stephen Harper has a blind side the size of a Buick.

Edited June 9, 2012 by August1991

[punked]

It is guns or butter. I would always rather feed Canadian kids then spend money shooting people in another country.

[Shakeyhands]

ahhhh isn't the issue that they can't account for the increase or know where the money went?

[Guest Derek L]

When will your younger brother go abroad next?

Not a clue, and barring an extension to the training mission in Afghanistan, it’s doubtful he’ll return there…..His thinking, based on a course he’ll be taking in the fall, is he likely get one more deployment prior to retiring as an observer on one of our continuous missions. (FRY/Africa etc)

And what will my younger brother have to pay to go to university?

I’ve no idea, nor is it my business or concern what he pays invests in his education for his and what potential earning he will garner from said education.

$700 million for tanks, or $700 million for schools/students? Is this even a question?

On this question, Stephen Harper once again appears to be a blockhead - as many Canadians (French/English) fear/suspect/know.

If Harper is not careful, Canadians are simply waiting for a reasonable/alternative federal political leader.

If Harper thinks that he is Mackenzie King/Maurice Duplessis - if he thinks that incremental conservatism will work, Harper is sorely mistaken. This is the 21st century.

-----

To his credit, Harper now faces Mulcair (a provincial cabinet minister) and likely Bob Rae (a once provincial PM). As I often argue here, regionalism drives Canada's federal politics - not ideology. (If you want to understand the EU or even the US, apply the same idea.)

Canadians identify Mulcair and Rae as regional representatives - willing to deal with other regions. And that's how Canadian voters view Harper. But I fear that Stephen Harper just doesn't understand this; he believes in "incremental conservatism".

As Woody Allen or Brian Mulroney would say, Stephen Harper has a blind side the size of a Buick.

And that is the rub………Successive Canadian Governments have targeted DND as the go to department to cut for decades, all the while still deploying our men and women overseas as pawns in Foreign Real Politick…….A Liberal Government sent our Forces to Afghanistan, followed by another Liberal Government increasing our combat mission with a Conservative Government then extending and finally ending it.

We sent them over initially in soft skin vehicles lacking in armour and without any helicopters……The vast majority of Canadians killed or wounded were done so by cheap and simple land mines and IEDs……Devices that largely would have been countered (in terms of injury or death) by mine protected vehicles or by flying personal versus driving them.

The lack of foresight in retiring our previous Chinooks, well very slowly replacing our Army’s equipment was committed by both PC and Liberal Governments in the 90s, which as mentioned prior, the following decade both had our forces ill prepared for the combat missions that they committed them to. Young Canadians died or were injured due to spending cuts.

At the end of the day, a cheap Chinese land mine doesn’t care if the Canadian it killed was wearing a Black or Blue beret.

Find a leader/party that won’t deploy Canadians overseas under any circumstances and I’ll tell you the leader/party that has the moral justification to drastically cut defence spending. Fair enough?

[punked]

Find a leader/party that won’t deploy Canadians overseas under any circumstances and I’ll tell you the leader/party that has the moral justification to drastically cut defence spending. Fair enough?

So vote NDP? K will do.

[Signals.Cpl]

So vote NDP? K will do.

We will maintain the current planned levels of Defence spending commitments, and we will equip the Canadian military to resume leadership in United Nations peacekeeping operations, with major new missions reviewed and approved by the House of Commons;

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/leadership-on-world-stage#section-6-4

[punked]

http://www.ndp.ca/platform/leadership-on-world-stage#section-6-4

Considering there is 15 Canadians on UN peace keeping missions it can't cost that much.

[Signals.Cpl]

Considering there is 15 Canadians on UN peace keeping missions it can't cost that much.

...we will equip the Canadian military to resume leadership in United Nations peacekeeping operations...

Meaning that there will be more. The NDP wants to send Canadian Soldiers on peacekeeping missions that serve no purpose other then a feel good mission for Canadians. And honestly, I am well aware what equip the military for peacekeeping means.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[punked]

Meaning that there will be more. The NDP wants to send Canadian Soldiers on peacekeeping missions that serve no purpose other then a feel good mission for Canadians. And honestly, I am well aware what equip the military for peacekeeping means.

To increase our peace keepers by 1000% would mean 150 Canadians. I promise you it will cost a whole lot less to give those guys everything they need then the whole military. I am not for sending our troops out with out what they need. However how much that costs is a problem if we want super low taxes and to dig our way out of this economic collapse.

Edited June 9, 2012 by punked

[cybercoma]

And Cyber, What DoD spends is not a concern of Canadian taxpayers (It’s DND)

This is one of the most baffling comments I've seen in awhile, topped only by MLW poster betsy's comment that women do not have sovereignty over their own bodies.

[cybercoma]

ahhhh isn't the issue that they can't account for the increase or know where the money went?

Yes. This is the issue. Perhaps the money is well spent. It's quite possibly some really important stuff that was absolutely necessary. The problem here, once again, is that the Conservatives cannot account for the money and are unable to answer to parliament for where the money has gone.

But that's ok apparently because contempt of parliament gets you a majority.

[westguy]

Link

Incompetence is one issue. The choice of how to spend the money is another.

---

Quebec estimates that it will have about 160,000 university students for the foreseeable future. The Quebec government wants to raise annual tuition fees by about $1000 - or about $160 million.

And as a society, we are suffering the consequences of such choices.

Do the math.

suffering?? Quebec is subsidized by the rest of Canada -especiallyy Albwerta's billions that allows Quebec to have in the country.

[cybercoma]

suffering?? Quebec is subsidized by the rest of Canada -especiallyy Albwerta's billions that allows Quebec to have in the country.

Quebec isn't subsidized by anyone. Stop perpetuating this ridiculous myth.

[Signals.Cpl]

To increase our peace keepers by 1000% would mean 150 Canadians. I promise you it will cost a whole lot less to give those guys everything they need then the whole military. I am not for sending our troops out with out what they need. However how much that costs is a problem if we want super low taxes and to dig our way out of this economic collapse.

Ok what about if we are to resume the Leadership in Peacekeeping? That would entail thousands of soldiers in dozens of different missions without the RoE's in place in order to prevent mass murders and improve the situation. In the 90's the budget cuts were accompanied with an increase tempo in deployments, which means that more people were being send to missions with worse equipment and less and less financial resources. Sending soldiers in to dangerous situations and missions and then tying their hands behind their backs is probably not the most productive way to accomplish anything.

Besides even if we were to return to peacekeeping and avoid wars of any kind in the foreseeable future would you say that we should disband the military units that are not directly associated with peacekeeping? The military is an insurance policy, you cancel the insurance policy if your house catches on fire it would probably be a little late for you to try and get some insurance. What you cut now, will cost you much more in an emergency.

[ironstone]

It's pretty bad when the National Post runs a story on the Conservative government's fiscal incompetence. It seems the Department of Defence can't explain why it spent $2.8 billion more in fiscal year 2012 than the previous year. In March, the final month of the fiscal year, they spent 55% more than the year before. So the Tories have been hacking and slashing spending, but the DoD is going on a spending spree. Meanwhile, Parliament can't find out where the hell the money is going because nobody wants to give any answers. Where's the promised accountability and transparency? Is this the type of fiscal management we can expect for the next 3 years? Mark my words, whatever is going on with the DoD as it pertains to this, procurement, and the F-35s is going to make adscam look like pocket change. It's going to make the airbus scandal look like a pittance.

I don't think there has ever been a single government that has a perfect fiscal record.It is probably somewhat harder given the massive size of Canada's government.

Perhaps things will get better in 2015 when Thomas "11 mortgage" Mulcair becomes Canada's first NDP Prime Minister.After all,doesn't Thomas"let's bail out Europe!" Mulcair have more fiscal sense than anyone?

I can't wait.....

[Signals.Cpl]

This is one of the most baffling comments I've seen in awhile, topped only by MLW poster betsy's comment that women do not have sovereignty over their own bodies.

DoD=US

DND=Canada