canadian government held in contemp

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

http://greenparty.ca/platform2011

I read their platform and was pleasantly surprised. Now how can I be sure that it would implemented? Let me explain, it's easy to promise the moon when you know you will not form the next government.

the biggest growth in green party registrants are social conservatives ... there is no billion dollar treehugger lobby who's gonna benefit (financially) from a green party gov't ... i love how the traditional campaign theme is Change - well, you want real change ... you can't be voting for the same people ...

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Excellent article on TFSA's, basically the info my financial advisor told me.

Tax break works for all incomes
http://www.financialpost.com/personal-f ... story.html

interesting in that both articles you posted had very positive headlines for the TFSA but when you read the article itself - it's significantly more ambiguous ...

polaris_x

this fighter jet issue is gonna be telling ...

i've been following this since i heard a bit on cbc ... they had experts on both sides of the debate and as more info comes to light ... it is pretty obvious we shouldn't be committing to these fighter jets ...

why on earth would the conservatives in an election year continue to be stubborn about this? ... have they moved so right wing and are they that beholden to the lockheed martin? .... i mean, this ain't america here ... how is he gonna fund the 500% increase in the cost of these jets?

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

http://greenparty.ca/platform2011

I read their platform and was pleasantly surprised. Now how can I be sure that it would implemented? Let me explain, it's easy to promise the moon when you know you will not form the next government.

the biggest growth in green party registrants are social conservatives ... there is no billion dollar treehugger lobby who's gonna benefit (financially) from a green party gov't ... i love how the traditional campaign theme is Change - well, you want real change ... you can't be voting for the same people ...

I guess time will, I don't know enough about the platform other than what I read on their website. I am beginning to think any vote is really only a vote for corruption.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Excellent article on TFSA's, basically the info my financial advisor told me.

Tax break works for all incomes
http://www.financialpost.com/personal-f ... story.html

interesting in that both articles you posted had very positive headlines for the TFSA but when you read the article itself - it's significantly more ambiguous ...

Yes I noticed that as well. What I like about the TFSA is the flexibility. RRSP's do not offer flexibility. To each their own, I think it is one of the best tax moves any government has done in my lifetime and I'm all for doubling.

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

this fighter jet issue is gonna be telling ...

i've been following this since i heard a bit on cbc ... they had experts on both sides of the debate and as more info comes to light ... it is pretty obvious we shouldn't be committing to these fighter jets ...

why on earth would the conservatives in an election year continue to be stubborn about this? ... have they moved so right wing and are they that beholden to the lockheed martin? .... i mean, this ain't america here ... how is he gonna fund the 500% increase in the cost of these jets?

To me the fighter jets come down to this, are we going to be asked by the UN/NATO to contribute to more missions like Libya and except, them we probably need to upgrade our fighter jets. If we're just going to patrol our own borders, then no we probably can look at a different.

I probably have not followed as closely as you. From some of what I have read and heard is that the F18 is essentially getting outdated and old. I don't really think it's a the big issue with Canadians that the liberals and ndp want it to be. I still think Canadians remember the sea king issue and of the famous leaky subs from the UK.

lukin2006

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... 5-faq.html

By reading this it appears we should be looking at the Boeing F15. It also appears other countries are making the same mistake as us.

I believe the US already has the F15 in it's arsenal, albeit an older version, so I wonder why the countries involved would not want to go with a newer version that's already tested.

I'll take an educated guess, the US is pushing the F35 program on the other countries involved and they will still go out and get the newer F15...seems logical and probable.

polaris_x

ya ... the issue isn't that we need new fighter jets ... no one is against an upgrade ... the issue is why are we committing to a fighter jet development program that has so many question marks in design and cost and doesn't even perform the way we want it to ...

it's like we are committing to betamax for no reason whatsoever ... the other issue is that harper refuses to outline the cost of this program but wants approval to go ahead ...

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I guess time will, I don't know enough about the platform other than what I read on their website. I am beginning to think any vote is really only a vote for corruption.

i would say for sure if you vote liberal or conservative ... there's definitely precedence ... probably with the ndp as well ...

don't think there is one for the Green party ...

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

this fighter jet issue is gonna be telling ...

i've been following this since i heard a bit on cbc ... they had experts on both sides of the debate and as more info comes to light ... it is pretty obvious we shouldn't be committing to these fighter jets ...

why on earth would the conservatives in an election year continue to be stubborn about this? ... have they moved so right wing and are they that beholden to the lockheed martin? .... i mean, this ain't america here ... how is he gonna fund the 500% increase in the cost of these jets?

To me the fighter jets come down to this, are we going to be asked by the UN/NATO to contribute to more missions like Libya and except, them we probably need to upgrade our fighter jets. If we're just going to patrol our own borders, then no we probably can look at a different.

I probably have not followed as closely as you. From some of what I have read and heard is that the F18 is essentially getting outdated and old. I don't really think it's a the big issue with Canadians that the liberals and ndp want it to be. I still think Canadians remember the sea king issue and of the famous leaky subs from the UK.

On the jets topic I'll reserve judgement pending some numbers I can believe. I've seen costs as low as $100mil per plane, but then we get estimates of $35bn total for 65 planes...my math is occasionally dodgy but it's not that bad. But I agree with the idea that if we're going to participate in UN/NATO missions we need to be able to do more than talk, but if it's for home I'm not sure I see a need. And funny you should mention the submarines...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/navy-waits-on-us-ok-for-125-million-submarine-torpedo-refit/article1976351/

I had no idea that they cannot fire any of our stock torpedoes at present, and the navy is trying to spend $125mil (with the yanks) to fix that problem. Even though three of the four boats aren't functional how did it ever make sense to have submarines with no weapons? How long have we had these fabulous symbols of sovereignty anyway? Six, eight years?

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

ya ... the issue isn't that we need new fighter jets ... no one is against an upgrade ... the issue is why are we committing to a fighter jet development program that has so many question marks in design and cost and doesn't even perform the way we want it to ...

it's like we are committing to betamax for no reason whatsoever ... the other issue is that harper refuses to outline the cost of this program but wants approval to go ahead ...

Any new untested military equipment will have cost over runs for sure, but if I'm not mistaken the F15 Boeing is pushing is just an upgraded F15 that the US currently uses, so it would seem like it's less likely to have cost over runs.

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

The US is behind this, I suspect they are putting pressure on the countries involved.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

Any new untested military equipment will have cost over runs for sure, but if I'm not mistaken the F15 Boeing is pushing is just an upgraded F15 that the US currently uses, so it would seem like it's less likely to have cost over runs.

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

The US is behind this, I suspect they are putting pressure on the countries involved.

all harper has to do is say we are delaying our commitment to these planes until there is some cost and performance certainty ... issue then becomes dead and irrelevant ... why not disclose the figures that people can get elsewhere? ... why continue to hide behiind really old estimates?

lukin2006

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Any new untested military equipment will have cost over runs for sure, but if I'm not mistaken the F15 Boeing is pushing is just an upgraded F15 that the US currently uses, so it would seem like it's less likely to have cost over runs.

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

The US is behind this, I suspect they are putting pressure on the countries involved.

all harper has to do is say we are delaying our commitment to these planes until there is some cost and performance certainty ... issue then becomes dead and irrelevant ... why not disclose the figures that people can get elsewhere? ... why continue to hide behiind really old estimates?

I doubt the cost are even known. Why not look at alternatives?

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

This morning CBC radio ran tape of Ignatieff stating that he would probably purchase planes, but through a normal tender process. That was at his town-hall last night apparently.

polaris_x

lukin2006 wrote:

I doubt the cost are even known. Why not look at alternatives?

there are at least estimates ... if you are going to commit tax dollars on such a large purchase - i would think you would use the most realistic numbers ...

but yeah - i can't remember the exact model as it was a while ago i heard the program but there is an alternative ... not a lot of options out there but there is one ...

lukin2006

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

This morning CBC radio ran tape of Ignatieff stating that he would probably purchase planes, but through a normal tender process. That was at his town-hall last night apparently.

That clears that up, originally I heard he would just cancel the f35. Personally I would prefer the military make the recommendations of type of fighter they need, and consult the pilot who ultimately have to fly these planes.

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

So maybe if Iggy wants to resonate with the voters more he should have had in his platform that we will investigate purchasing the f15 instead, instead on planning on cancelling the replacement jet program altogether.

This morning CBC radio ran tape of Ignatieff stating that he would probably purchase planes, but through a normal tender process. That was at his town-hall last night apparently.

That clears that up, originally I heard he would just cancel the f35. Personally I would prefer the military make the recommendations of type of fighter they need, and consult the pilot who ultimately have to fly these planes.

Bugs me that I still can verify what I know I heard this morning (ok, there might have been wine involved last night), however from the NatPo, March 29:

“We are going to replace the CF-18 — we care about the sovereignty of Canada. But we’ve got time to get this right. [The Conservatives] tried to hustle the country into a purchase without a competitive process,” Mr. Ignatieff said during a campaign stop at a downtown Toronto hotel. “We’ve got to deliver the right plane at the right price.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29/ignatieff-vows-to-re-examine-fighter-plane-deal/

lukin2006

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

this fighter jet issue is gonna be telling ...

i've been following this since i heard a bit on cbc ... they had experts on both sides of the debate and as more info comes to light ... it is pretty obvious we shouldn't be committing to these fighter jets ...

why on earth would the conservatives in an election year continue to be stubborn about this? ... have they moved so right wing and are they that beholden to the lockheed martin? .... i mean, this ain't america here ... how is he gonna fund the 500% increase in the cost of these jets?

To me the fighter jets come down to this, are we going to be asked by the UN/NATO to contribute to more missions like Libya and except, them we probably need to upgrade our fighter jets. If we're just going to patrol our own borders, then no we probably can look at a different.

I probably have not followed as closely as you. From some of what I have read and heard is that the F18 is essentially getting outdated and old. I don't really think it's a the big issue with Canadians that the liberals and ndp want it to be. I still think Canadians remember the sea king issue and of the famous leaky subs from the UK.

On the jets topic I'll reserve judgement pending some numbers I can believe. I've seen costs as low as $100mil per plane, but then we get estimates of $35bn total for 65 planes...my math is occasionally dodgy but it's not that bad. But I agree with the idea that if we're going to participate in UN/NATO missions we need to be able to do more than talk, but if it's for home I'm not sure I see a need. And funny you should mention the submarines...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/navy-waits-on-us-ok-for-125-million-submarine-torpedo-refit/article1976351/

I had no idea that they cannot fire any of our stock torpedoes at present, and the navy is trying to spend $125mil (with the yanks) to fix that problem. Even though three of the four boats aren't functional how did it ever make sense to have submarines with no weapons? How long have we had these fabulous symbols of sovereignty anyway? Six, eight years?

Are these not diesel subs as well, if so, I'm not really sure how effective they really are.

It's funny listening to a liberal leader saying we got time to get this right, their track record on subs is not so good.

bytterman

lukin2006 wrote:

Are these not diesel subs as well, if so, I'm not really sure how effective they really are.
It's funny listening to a liberal leader saying we got time to get this right, their track record on subs is not so good.

Yet they've done so well on helicopters...ok I suppose it's not fair to blame Ignatieff for either problem. I don't know much about submarines, but I think diesel-electric is pretty old technology, but the other option nuclear, and those would get really pricey (not to mention cause a shitload of uproar). I'm not sure I see the point to submarines for us; 4 boats in/out of dry-dock is hardly an effective deterrent for foreign fishing fleets, let alone actual navies. Besides, not as though the Taliban are sea-faring folk...

lukin2006

Debate could move for Habs opener

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6322728

Only in Canada, and I think us Canucks should be proud of this.