SunnyWays Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 They weren't the government then. They could basically say whatever they wanted without legal consequence. That's become very clear with just about everything they said..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 That's become very clear with just about everything they said..... It's clear like the Conservative Income Trust promise. sometimes, things that made sense in opposition no longer make sense in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's clear like the Conservative Income Trust promise. sometimes, things that made sense in opposition no longer make sense in government. True - but holy cow.....so many, so quickly. That said, let's wait for the budget - that'll tell us a lot. Will they hold down spending promises to focus on economic investment - infrastructure and jobs..... will the taps be wide open - deficit and debt be damned? On top of that, setting a budget is one thing - managing and sticking to it is quite another. Canadians don't seem to be too accepting of a runaway budget. It'll be an interesting year, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 They weren't the government then. They could basically say whatever they wanted without legal consequence. And that is Coyne's point......they made all sorts of bunk promises. The dollar wasn't at it's current low when they made their platform. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Oh, and F-18 is still within our budget - there just won't be any money left over. No, it isn't, not spread over 65 aircraft.............hence there will be no savings to invest in the navy, from not selecting the F-35 (even though Canada is still a member of the program)........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Our military costs about $20 billion a year over the last few years. Get our troops out of those civil wars in the Middle East and we save $5 billion a year. Poof, half the deficit gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 No, it isn't, not spread over 65 aircraft.............hence there will be no savings to invest in the navy It's enough for the aircraft, but not to do anything else with the money. Why do you constantly argue things that people don't say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 And that is Coyne's point......they made all sorts of bunk promises. At this point, only 3 promises have been broken - two of them to do with timeline, and not actual substance. That's pretty common for a new government. Coyne is jumping the gun, as are you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 True - but holy cow.....so many, so quickly. 3 That said, let's wait for the budget - that'll tell us a lot. Will they hold down spending promises to focus on economic investment - infrastructure and jobs..... will the taps be wide open - deficit and debt be damned? On top of that, setting a budget is one thing - managing and sticking to it is quite another. Canadians don't seem to be too accepting of a runaway budget. It'll be an interesting year, that's for sure. You'll filet them if the run a bigger deficit (mostly due to a softening financial position) and you'll filet them if they break their promises to keep the deficit smaller. They won't convince you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's enough for the aircraft, but not to do anything else with the money. Why do you constantly argue things that people don't say? No it isn't, as Super Hornets (like other alternatives) are now over $100 million, per plane, in Canadian dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 At this point, only 3 promises have been broken - two of them to do with timeline, and not actual substance. That's pretty common for a new government. Coyne is jumping the gun, as are you. No, Coyne is pointing out the dishonest promises made by the Liberals during the election......the inclusion of the F-35 into the Hornet replacement program is a broken promise.....likewise, their claim that any savings, which there won't be, could be invested in the Navy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 No it isn't, as Super Hornets (like other alternatives) are now over $100 million, per plane, in Canadian dollars. Right - far less than $9B total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 No, Coyne is pointing out the dishonest promises made by the Liberals during the election......the inclusion of the F-35 into the Hornet replacement program is a broken promise There hasn't been a competition, last I checked. Also, they promised not to buy it. They didn't promise not to let it compete. .....likewise, their claim that any savings, which there won't be, could be invested in the Navy. Right, our currency has taken a huge dive, for some reason that escapes me at the moment. Besides, you told me they won't buy anything - nothing to worry about, remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Right - far less than $9B total. A proposed purchase plan for 65 F-35s at ~$85 million per, when the Canadian dollar was near parity with the American dollar.........Super Hornets at over $100 million Canadian don't fit inside said budget. Edited February 21, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 There hasn't been a competition, last I checked. Also, they promised not to buy it. They didn't promise not to let it compete. Are you suggesting the competition they promised won't be fair and is designed to preclude the F-35? Right, our currency has taken a huge dive, for some reason that escapes me at the moment.Besides, you told me they won't buy anything - nothing to worry about, remember. No, we won't buy anything, unless the Liberals allot Billions more they don't have into defense, because the Canadian dollar is worth slightly more than Canadian Tire money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 A proposed purchase plan for 65 F-35s at ~$85 million per, when the Canadian dollar was near parity with the American dollar.........Super Hornets at over $100 million Canadian don't inside said budget. Whatever - it's pretty easy to do the math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Whatever - it's pretty easy to do the math. It is, as cited and applied to today's exchange rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Are you suggesting the competition they promised won't be fair and is designed to preclude the F-35? Do I work for the Liberals? It will be done in a way that legally excludes the F-35, somehow. No, we won't buy anything, unless the Liberals allot Billions more they don't have into defense, because the Canadian dollar is worth slightly more than Canadian Tire money. I know you don't understand where procurement money is in the budget. I'm not having the discussion again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 It is, as cited and applied to today's exchange rate. Quick, what's 100x65? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Do I work for the Liberals? It will be done in a way that legally excludes the F-35, somehow. Source? I know you don't understand where procurement money is in the budget. I'm not having the discussion again. Feel free to present where the Liberals have put aside billions for new fighters, and billions more to make up for our slumping dollar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Quick, what's 100x65? More than 85x65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 More than 85x65. That's more in my favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 I think , we are purchasing more than just 65 Plain jane F-35, there was talk of wpns, spare parts, sims, and a lot more...when you translate all that that comes with this contract the F-18's at 100 mil a copy, plus all the extras plus adjust for our dollars value and now we are way over 9 bil.....which means what exactly....i'm just guessing here but I think when they redefine Canada's new role or Canada's commitments we are going to see a number smaller than 65.....Which most have thought was short to start with.... Not to mention the under funded Navy program, which was going to be saved with excess airforce dollars .....So not only have they not kept the "any thing but f 35 promise, but sank the navy only saving grace to that program....I guess we stay tuned to later when they announce decreased naval numbers as well....or an readjustment to the entire shipbuilding project..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 The Conservative shipbuilding plan is a clear failure on cost and delivery, as is every post 2012 procurement project. Trying to find a way to blame the Liberals smacks of pure partisanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 You'll filet them if the run a bigger deficit (mostly due to a softening financial position) and you'll filet them if they break their promises to keep the deficit smaller. They won't convince you. They promised "modest" deficits of no more than $10 billion. You yourself have agreed that the degraded economy might lead to a $5 billion revenue shortfall. So I would accept a $15 billion budget. Does that sound like filleting? Look, these guys are the government for the next 4 years - whether we like it or not......and for Canada's sake, I hope they'll do more right things than wrong - but it starts and ends with the economy and jobs right now - right now! As I said, the budget will tell us a lot. The spirit of their election promise was to run a deficit to strengthen the economy - so any spending over the $10 or $15 billion should clearly target economic growth - and nothing more......and if not, we should hold them to account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.