More Fiscal Incompetence from the Conservatives

[ironstone]

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

You have GOT to be kidding right?You have never heard of have and have-not provincec?You aren't aware of equalization payments?

Quebec is the biggest beneficiary by far.

For the record,I don't believe Alberta has the cheapest tuition fees nor to they have $7 per day daycare.

[cybercoma]

You have GOT to be kidding right?You have never heard of have and have-not provincec?You aren't aware of equalization payments?

Quebec is the biggest beneficiary by far.

For the record,I don't believe Alberta has the cheapest tuition fees nor to they have $7 per day daycare.

Apparently you don't understand how equalization payments work.

[punked]

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.

What insurance? What are you talking about? Seriously I don't remember anyone invading Canada during the last round of cuts. I am not scared of your pretend Bogey man never have been never will be. It is Conservatives that are scared of the world not me.

[punked]

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.....

None of those are real attacks I hope you know that. None of that applies to the Leader of the opposition. When the double dip comes I will await you to tell me that it would be worse if the Mulcair was in power. I just want you to remember who was in government when the next recession happens.

[waldo]

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the cost increases are partly due to purchases of new military equipment, with the bulk of DND spending going to salaries for soldiers and department staff.

“We’re doing major procurement investments and putting money into bases, programs. We’ve increased spending of course for the ill and injured,” MacKay told reporters on Parliament Hill.

“We’ve put in place a number of programs to support families across the country so these investments demonstrate our commitment to improve and expand upon the funding there for the Canadian Forces.”

Asked why the department is having so much difficulty explaining the spending increase, MacKay said: “I’ve just explained it,” and did not provide further details.

a Harper Conservative - Peter MacKay audit gem... on the fly!

[ironstone]

Apparently you don't understand how equalization payments work.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/report-suggests-quebec-unfair-advantage-canada-equalization-payment-184012813.html

[punked]

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/report-suggests-quebec-unfair-advantage-canada-equalization-payment-184012813.html

Have fun opening the Constitution to get rid of it.

[madmax]

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

Well Signals... I don't knwo what the problem is here.. it looks good considering this is the NDP platform from the last election.

I will say that there is a level of fiscal incompetence showing and Peter McKay has been lame. Then we saw the poor peformance of Anders to those ironically card carrying conservative veterans.

This below is actually pragmatic sound policy imho.

thanks for linking it above....

--------------------------------------------------------------

6.4 Charting a New Course for Canada’s Defence

•We will give the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who put their lives on the line every day, the best equipment to do the job with, proper support and benefits;

•We will focus Canada’s military on three main priorities: defending Canada; providing support for peacemaking, peace-building and peacekeeping around the world; and assisting people facing natural catastrophes, including floods, earthquakes, forest fires and other emergencies, both at home and abroad;

•We will ensure the Canadian Forces are properly staffed, equipped and trained to effectively address the full range of possible military operations arising from these three priorities;

•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;

•We will improve search and rescue capability to international standards within the current budgetary framework;

•We will draft a Defence White Paper, redefining our military’s role, its priorities and needs, to be completed within 12 months. During that time, all major defence projects will be reviewed;

•We will implement a fair and open process where competitors can offer industrial deals and benefits. Such an open process ensures Canadians get the best price, the military gets what it needs and Canadian industries get the best spin-offs;

•We will review the proposed F-35 purchase as part of the Defence White Paper;

•Within the existing budget, we will establish an annual fund for government shipbuilding. This would provide stability to the industry and include construction of new ships for the Navy and the Coast Guard.

Back to top

6.5 Fulfilling Commitments to Honour our Veterans

•We will respect Canada’s obligations to our military veterans by: •Ending the unfair reduction of pensions for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans;

•Stopping the unjust cuts to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) for medically released members of the Canadian Forces and former RCMP members. Ending these claw-backs will improve the lives of over 100,000 veterans in Canada;

•Overhauling the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; appointing its members from military, RCMP and medical personnel, and ensuring that veterans’ appeals are fairly reviewed by their peers;

•Introducing a “Helmets-to-Hardhats” program to help veterans transition to construction and shipbuilding trades;

•Responding to veterans’ organizations, spouses and widows, and others and initiating a public inquiry into toxic chemical defoliation at CFB Gagetown.

[cybercoma]

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/eqp-eng.asp

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/report-suggests-quebec-unfair-advantage-canada-equalization-payment-184012813.html

So am I supposed to click on your links and read your mind as to what your thoughts are?

[punked]

So am I supposed to click on your links and read your mind as to what your thoughts are?

His answer with those links was "No I don't know anything, let me google something but I am to lazy to retype what it says to make it look I know something so instead I will post these links."

[Signals.Cpl]

Well Signals... I don't knwo what the problem is here.. it looks good considering this is the NDP platform from the last election.

I will say that there is a level of fiscal incompetence showing and Peter McKay has been lame. Then we saw the poor peformance of Anders to those ironically card carrying conservative veterans.

This below is actually pragmatic sound policy imho.

thanks for linking it above....

--------------------------------------------------------------

6.4 Charting a New Course for Canada’s Defence

•We will give the men and women of the Canadian Forces, who put their lives on the line every day, the best equipment to do the job with, proper support and benefits;

•We will focus Canada’s military on three main priorities: defending Canada; providing support for peacemaking, peace-building and peacekeeping around the world; and assisting people facing natural catastrophes, including floods, earthquakes, forest fires and other emergencies, both at home and abroad;

•We will ensure the Canadian Forces are properly staffed, equipped and trained to effectively address the full range of possible military operations arising from these three priorities;

•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;

•We will improve search and rescue capability to international standards within the current budgetary framework;

•We will draft a Defence White Paper, redefining our military’s role, its priorities and needs, to be completed within 12 months. During that time, all major defence projects will be reviewed;

•We will implement a fair and open process where competitors can offer industrial deals and benefits. Such an open process ensures Canadians get the best price, the military gets what it needs and Canadian industries get the best spin-offs;

•We will review the proposed F-35 purchase as part of the Defence White Paper;

•Within the existing budget, we will establish an annual fund for government shipbuilding. This would provide stability to the industry and include construction of new ships for the Navy and the Coast Guard.

Back to top

6.5 Fulfilling Commitments to Honour our Veterans

•We will respect Canada’s obligations to our military veterans by: •Ending the unfair reduction of pensions for retired and disabled Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans;

•Stopping the unjust cuts to the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) for medically released members of the Canadian Forces and former RCMP members. Ending these claw-backs will improve the lives of over 100,000 veterans in Canada;

•Overhauling the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; appointing its members from military, RCMP and medical personnel, and ensuring that veterans’ appeals are fairly reviewed by their peers;

•Introducing a “Helmets-to-Hardhats” program to help veterans transition to construction and shipbuilding trades;

•Responding to veterans’ organizations, spouses and widows, and others and initiating a public inquiry into toxic chemical defoliation at CFB Gagetown.

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?

Reply:

So vote NDP? K will do.

My reply

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

The fact is that the NDP is just as likely to deploy Canadians overseas as any other party, I was pointing out that little fact.

[punked]

Reply:

My reply

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

The fact is that the NDP is just as likely to deploy Canadians overseas as any other party, I was pointing out that little fact.

History says you are wrong though. The NDP have always had a large part of the party voting against sending Canadians over seas.

[Signals.Cpl]

What insurance? What are you talking about? Seriously I don't remember anyone invading Canada during the last round of cuts. I am not scared of your pretend Bogey man never have been never will be. It is Conservatives that are scared of the world not me.

Last time I didn't have home insurance my house didn't burn down, but I don't plan on building my future on the assumption that this will not happen again.

It would be a little too late to start building up the military when you need it, as so far we have gotten away with it but I don't base my decision for my future on the flukes of yesterday. I remember Canadian soldiers dying needlessly because of the last spending cuts, I assume you don't know much about national interests, but they do exist and as such military force will be required from time to time. Wether the ruling party is the Conservatives, Liberals or the NDP, it will always be the exact same situation when the National interests come up the government has to act.

[Signals.Cpl]

History says you are wrong though. The NDP have always had a large part of the party voting against sending Canadians over seas.

And their own party platform says you are wrong. Are you seriously going to argue with me about the NDP's platform when their platform specifically states intent to sign up for useless peacekeeping missions?

[madmax]

So am I supposed to click on your links and read your mind as to what your thoughts are?

I thought the same thing...

Links don't say or suggest anything.

Ironically the one link suggests Ontario should receive MORE in equalization.

Basically it just wants to tinker with the formula. And by the look of it is would give more provinices equalization payments, or in a nutshell more of its own money back.

The first link states how equalization works which supports what I have said earlier.

[punked]

And their own party platform says you are wrong. Are you seriously going to argue with me about the NDP's platform when their platform specifically states intent to sign up for useless peacekeeping missions?

I am going to say sending 15 Canadians aboard or like I said 150. Most of the time how are funding not by just Canada but by the whole world costs a whole lot less then sending thousands our troops into a war zone. In 60 years of peace keeping we have had less deaths then the last Military venture.

These things costs less. Sorry.

[punked]

Last time I didn't have home insurance my house didn't burn down, but I don't plan on building my future on the assumption that this will not happen again.

It would be a little too late to start building up the military when you need it, as so far we have gotten away with it but I don't base my decision for my future on the flukes of yesterday. I remember Canadian soldiers dying needlessly because of the last spending cuts, I assume you don't know much about national interests, but they do exist and as such military force will be required from time to time. Wether the ruling party is the Conservatives, Liberals or the NDP, it will always be the exact same situation when the National interests come up the government has to act.

Again you make no sense. We always come to this and you always pee your pants in fear of some great invasion. From who? Iceland hasn't had a military in some 100 years yet no invasions. I think we can do with a pared down military right now.

Edited June 9, 2012 by punked

[madmax]

And their own party platform says you are wrong. Are you seriously going to argue with me about the NDP's platform when their platform specifically states intent to sign up for useless peacekeeping missions?

PeaceKeeping missions are not useless. Enough of my friends did multiple tours and useless is not the term they came back with. Some were from the gravy era and some were from the more difficult 90s. If anything Burnout was a huge factor.

There is definitely a place for peacekeeping missions. Of course there are always those who suggest different. I expect that in the military. There is always the Gung Ho types. (Beware of fratricide)

Peacekeeping and Peacemaking missions can be successful or a debacle. We have seen both.

And yes the NDP were for Removing the troops from Afghanistan early.

I could never understand how one things 800 frontline combat troops are going to tame a country of 25 million that has been fighting since the mid 70s.

How long should it take to train a nation of nationalistic fighters to defend their government?

If you can't trust those you are protecting, what are you doing there?

If you can't bridge the path to peace and stable government, you are left with running around for months on end with endless taskforce missions and no endgame.

That said....

Setting goals is imperative in any operation.

Be it peacekeeping or combat.

There is a time to switch from Combat to Peacemaking.

I believe the 3 block strategy has proven to be a flawed and failed strategy.

I also believe anyone involved in combat during a peacemaking mission needs to be treated as a combat veteran.

imho.

Edited June 9, 2012 by madmax

[Signals.Cpl]

I am going to say sending 15 Canadians aboard or like I said 150. Most of the time how are funding not by just Canada but by the whole world costs a whole lot less then sending thousands our troops into a war zone. In 60 years of peace keeping we have had less deaths then the last Military venture.

These things costs less. Sorry.

So you are sticking to the imaginary numbers now? What about during the hight of Canada's peacekeeping adventure where we had thousands of soldiers deployed? I don't think even the NDP is naive enough to believe that 150 soldiers will bring Canada back to a leadership role... 121 Canadians died over those 60 years, and how many of those missions were a success?

You want cheap, useless missions, so that a military could be maintained on the cheap and be useless in any other type of operation but peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is dead, at least with the way the UN is running it, so the best we can do is avoid going overseas at all or avoid UN peacekeeping.

[Signals.Cpl]

Again you make no sense. We always come to this and you always pee your pants in fear of some great invasion. From who? Iceland hasn't had a military in some 100 years yet no invasions. I think we can do with a pared down military right now.

i'm sorry but who has defended Iceland throughout the last 100 years? Who defended Iceland during World War 2? The cold war? Im pretty sure the US had something to do with them not requiring a military.

[waldo]

You want cheap, useless missions, so that a military could be maintained on the cheap and be useless in any other type of operation but peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is dead, at least with the way the UN is running it, so the best we can do is avoid going overseas at all or avoid UN peacekeeping.

there are currently 16 active UN Peacekeeping missions across the world... from your lowly Cpl military perspective, which of these active missions are useless - and why? What's missing/lacking to bring them above your esteemed "useless designation"?

[waldo]

Last time I didn't have home insurance my house didn't burn down, but I don't plan on building my future on the assumption that this will not happen again.

I expect you purchased a home insurance policy based on your personal risk assessment... what a concept!!!

[Signals.Cpl]

PeaceKeeping missions are not useless. Enough of my friends did multiple tours and useless is not the term they came back with. Some were from the gravy era and some were from the more difficult 90s. If anything Burnout was a huge factor.

There is definitely a place for peacekeeping missions. Of course there are always those who suggest different. I expect that in the military. There is always the Gung Ho types. (Beware of fratricide)

Peacekeeping and Peacemaking missions can be successful or a debacle. We have seen both.

Can you point to any successful peacekeeping missions?

And yes the NDP were for Removing the troops from Afghanistan early.

And then they want to send Canadian Peacekeepers to missions where they can watch the rapes and murders happen while being restricted on their actions.

I could never understand how one things 800 frontline combat troops are going to tame a country of 25 million that has been fighting since the mid 70s.

I hope you realize that there were other nations there as well.

How long should it take to train a nation of nationalistic fighters to defend their government?

Does it matter if the end result is a nation that can provide a better life for its citizens?

If you can't trust those you are protecting, what are you doing there?

Protecting the 50 or so percent who had NO voice?

If you can't bridge the path to peace and stable government, you are left with running around for months on end with endless taskforce missions and no endgame.

That said....

Setting goals is imperative in any operation.

The failure was was on the political side rather then the military side.

Be it peacekeeping or combat.

There is a time to switch from Combat to Peacemaking.

Massive difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking.

I believe the 3 block strategy has proven to be a flawed and failed strategy.

Care to explain?

I also believe anyone involved in combat during a peacemaking mission needs to be treated as a combat veteran.

imho.

Then it wouldn't be a peacekeeping mission... The whole argument here is that the UN has screwed up each and every mission because of its very structure which was wether intentionally or by accident designed for failure.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[punked]

i'm sorry but who has defended Iceland throughout the last 100 years? Who defended Iceland during World War 2? The cold war? Im pretty sure the US had something to do with them not requiring a military.

So what? That isn't my point. My point is your they will invade us argument is wrong. We know of a country that has resources like Canada who no one has invaded that is right next door and have a thousandth of the population we have.

[madmax]

You want cheap, useless missions, so that a military could be maintained on the cheap and be useless in any other type of operation but peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is dead, at least with the way the UN is running it, so the best we can do is avoid going overseas at all or avoid UN peacekeeping.

Sierra Leone was successful.

Burundi was successful.

Haiti... well thats open for debate. but if you are suggesting you could successfully tame haiti with combat missions, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

All combat missions require keeping the peace to achieve victory.

Thus even in countries where they have gone to war, the end result is a followup by peacekeepers to maintain the fragile end to combat activities. It doesn't take much for an incident to occur and reflare up a volatile situation.

What I will say, having suffered through the Liberal Era of Military cutbacks, is that if the Conservatives maintain their level of fiscal incompentence and allow these kinds of bureacratic and corporate decisions to rule the department of defence.....

you will see a backlash to failed and foolish military spending.