Big Guy Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 The solution? Bring back the 2% the Conservatives cut from the HST - $14 billion a year Cut back military spending from $20 billion to $15 billion a year - $5 billion a year Legalize marijuana - anticipated tax income $5 billion a year We just found $24 billion a year - not only no deficit but a surplus!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 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. The IMF has called for concerted efforts to spur growth. I would expect a deficit in the $20 - 25B range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 The IMF has called for concerted efforts to spur growth. I would expect a deficit in the $20 - 25B range. Just what I said - anything over $15 billion should be clearly directed at economic growth - and that was the centerpiece of their deficit promise and the campaign itself...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Just what I said - anything over $15 billion should be clearly directed at economic growth - and that was the centerpiece of their deficit promise and the campaign itself...... There are some things that need to be cleaned up - additional money for first nations will come in the budget, but much of that will help the economy as well. They have promised more money for poor seniors, more money for low and middle class families with children, and more for infrastructure. All of that should help as those things have a multiplying effect economically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 More than 85x65.What's 85 at today's currency? Funny you bring up the one in today's currency but still quote the other in yesterday's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 What's 85 at today's currency? Funny you bring up the one in today's currency but still quote the other in yesterday's. That is but my point, with today's exchange rate, we can't afford said proposed deal (when our dollar was at parity) at ~$85 million CDN x 65 F-35s......as such, with today's exchange, we can't afford ~$100 million CDN x 65 Super Hornets.......and the numbers are even more dire when one exchanges CDN for Euros, hence making European aircraft even more expensive than the F-35 or the Super Hornet...... Likewise, as I noted countless times prior to the election, the promise of selecting a "cheaper aircraft" to free up funds to invest in the navy is also bunk.......regardless of exchanges rates, of currently produced Western aircraft, the difference in pricing of the currently cheapest aircraft (F-16) to the most expensive (Eurofighter) is in the neighborhood of ~$30-40 million per aircraft. As such, using these extreme ends of the scale, ~$30 million x 65 aircraft is ~$2-2 1/2 billion...or about the cost of a single Canadian produced destroyer for the navy........but of course, the previous Government never intended to purchase the most expensive aircraft, as such, the difference in proposed savings is negligible at best, and might afford the navy or Coast Guard a small auxiliary vessel or two......... Hence another "over promise" that the Trudeau government will have to "adjust" to fit into reality once they were met with actual facts........and is why the Trudeau Government still paid into the F-35 program, has not left the program and the Minister of National Defense won't go on record as stating the F-35 won't replace our current Hornets....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyWays Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 There are some things that need to be cleaned up - additional money for first nations will come in the budget, but much of that will help the economy as well. They have promised more money for poor seniors, more money for low and middle class families with children, and more for infrastructure. All of that should help as those things have a multiplying effect economically. Are you saying they made those promises without any idea of the cost? Or are you saying they knew the cost but just didn't tell us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 While I do not like the F-35 and never will I must tell Derek when he is dead on with his numbers and analysis he is smack dead on. I have to admit Derek you summed it up zip zap and zow. At this point with the currency drop things change. I still think the Swedish fighter was the best for what we actually need but infrastructure, spin off jobs and legal contract liability exposure trumps the situation. The F35 purchase is a forgone conclusion at this point. Good luck figuring its blind spots out. No helmet can undo that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 So the argument here is that we should,continue with the more expensive F35 because the exchange rate makes it even more expensive than other options still. That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 So the argument here is that we should,continue with the more expensive F35 because the exchange rate makes it even more expensive than other options still. That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Well of course it doesn't. The F-35 is currently $140M CDN + engines. The Super Hornet, if we keep other costs down, is within a $9B budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 So the argument here is that we should,continue with the more expensive F35 because the exchange rate makes it even more expensive than other options still. That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. No, the argument is that unless either more money is added to the Hornet replacement program (or our dollar reverts to parity) or the Trudeau Government reduces the number of aircraft (thus not only limiting our ability to contribute to NATO, but NORAD), they won't be buying new aircraft in this mandate, and there will be no savings to go to the navy........ Furthermore, if they leave the F-35 program (which they haven't done), once the current low rate production contracts expire in a couple years, thousands of Canadians in the aerospace sector will loose their jobs as the aircraft enters full production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Well of course it doesn't. The F-35 is currently $140M CDN + engines. The Super Hornet, if we keep other costs down, is within a $9B budget. No it isn't, as already cited..........there are no Western produced aircraft inside the proposed envelope for 65 new aircraft (plus spares, training aides etc), at this current exchange rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 No it isn't, as already cited..........there are no Western produced aircraft inside the proposed envelope for 65 new aircraft (plus spares, training aides etc), at this current exchange rate. you're going to have to prove that. You should probably do it in another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 you're going to have to prove that. You should probably do it in another thread. I already have, the two cheapest Western produced aircraft now (Super Hornet & F-16) are over $70 million flyaway in USD, which converts into ~$100 million Canadian......more than the planned ~$85 USD F-35 (when our dollar was at or near parity)......as such, selecting the cheapest (F-16V) now pushes past the cost of the F-35 purchase at current exchange rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 There was a contingency of about $12M per aircraft built in. Try again. The F-35 is over $140M+ engine at current exchange rates. Try again. In another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 There was a contingency of about $12M per aircraft built in. Try again. The F-35 is over $140M+ engine at current exchange rates. Try again. In another thread. ~$12 million Canadian......or ~$8.6 million USD......Try again. It doesn't mater what the F-35 costs, or will cost when it enters production, as we can't afford any aircraft with the proposed budget, at current exchange rates. And no, I won't go into another thread, as this clearly speaks to Coyne's point, the Liberals made foolish promises on the Hornet replacement file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 ~$12 million Canadian......or ~$8.6 million USD......Try again. 85M + 12M brings us pretty close to $100M, doesn't it? There are two aircraft that cost in the range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 85M + 12M brings us pretty close to $100M, doesn't it? There are two aircraft that cost in the range. Not when you account for exchange rates then and now ~$62 million + ~$8.6 million doesn't buy you a Super Hornet or a F-16V........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Not when you account for exchange rates then and now You're wrong and trying to cover things up. That's nice, but I'm not playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 You're also (again) blaming Trudeau for a Harper created problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 You're wrong and trying to cover things up. That's nice, but I'm not playing. I'm not the slightest bit wrong ~$85 million + ~$12 million CDN today is worth less exchanged into USD than it was several years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 You're also (again) blaming Trudeau for a Harper created problem. Harper didn't promise a cheaper alternative that would result in savings to be directed to the navy. 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.