How should Canada's wars be financed?

[Goober]

Tennager? :lol:
Try looking in the mirror, bud! Heh, I guess Goober is one of those Government workers struggling to use MS-Word.

Nope - Had a few beers and did not use spell check - You prove my point. Thank you.

And No I do not work for the Govt. When I was in the Military i was NOT a Public Servant, I was a Soldier. Can you understand the difference?
I doubt that you can understand the difference.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, professor of the obvious. Would you accept a cut in your welfare check for further cost cutting?

Well, my welfare check comes from my customers. But here's the thing. Harper wants to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Is it a good idea? In principle, I'm undecided. In practice, The idea that he won't at least bring it before Parliament kills any legitimacy it might have.

However, if he insists on extending that mission, then he ought to have the courage to admit that it will cost money, that money doesn't grow on trees, and that therefore he needs to cut somewhere or raise taxes or both if he truly is a fiscal conservative.

As for welfare recipients, I don't agree with giving them welfare at all. I'm not saying let them starve, but rather send them to school with room and board. it might cost more in the short term, but I'd rather send a welfare recipient to school for a year than have him collect welfare for a lifetime. It's the old give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish debate.

 

[Goober]

Well, my welfare check comes from my customers. But here's the thing. Harper wants to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Is it a good idea? In principle, I'm undecided. In practice, The idea that he won't at least bring it before Parliament kills any legitimacy it might have.

However, if he insists on extending that mission, then he ought to have the courage to admit that it will cost money, that money doesn't grow on trees, and that therefore he needs to cut somewhere or raise taxes or both if he truly is a fiscal conservative.

As for welfare recipients, I don't agree with giving them welfare at all. I'm not saying let them starve, but rather send them to school with room and board. it might cost more in the short term, but I'd rather send a welfare recipient to school for a year than have him collect welfare for a lifetime. It's the old give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish debate.

The cost for this is one hell of a lot less than the billions already spent. Did you consider that. Did you consider that this is also part of the Liberal party Platform. Having a vote is a waste of time. Libs/Cons will pass it.

 

[Machjo]

The cost for this is one hell of a lot less than the billions already spent. Did you consider that. Did you consider that this is also part of the Liberal party Platform. Having a vote is a waste of time. Libs/Cons will pass it.

Why is this a Lib con issue? Ignatieff is not the PM right now. But yes, I agree that Ignatieff is probably not much better. THe scary thing is, with the lack of libertarian-leaning politicians on the right, libertarian-leaning voters are starting to wonder whom to vote for. Some might turn to the NDP with holding their nostrils firmly shut while voting. Some might consider the Green Party, though I don't know how it would fare if it gained more power. We could vote for the best politician in our riding regardless of his party affiliation, but of course he's one vote in an ever-prorogued and ignored Parlaiment lately.

 

[petros]

Opium is working great so far. No?

 

[ironsides]

Again, I see a distinction betwen reality and idealism. First off, I'll lay out my cards to give you an idea of where I stand.

Iraq would be a clear example of a war we should have avoided and did avoid. Afghanistan, I'm not too sure. WWII would be a clear example of a necessary war.

As for wars we shouldn't be fighting in the first place, I fully agree that I don't want to fund sucha war. But here's the thing. If a majority of parliament supports it by supporting budgets for it, then clearly that same group will not let anyone escape without making their contribution. That money will be spent on war whether we like it or not. It's just a question of whether they'll make us pay for it now, or with interest later. Between those two options, I'd rather pay it now.

Just to take another example of the distinction between reality and the ideal, let's suppose that next year the NDP form a majority in Parliament. First off, it doesn't get to write off the Afghanitan War contribution to the national debt just because the NDP didn't agree with that war. It would still be faced with having to pay off that debt whether it agreed to it or not, and there would be no way of introducing a tax only on those who agreed with the war.

So in the end, even the NDP would make us pay that debt, or so we'd hope if we are in fact fiscal conservatives.

Now if the issue is about changing laws to make it more difficult to go to war in the first place without careful scrutiny, then I could agree to that. But in the end, whether we agree with this or that war, we are still stuck with the bill.

I do agree with everything you said, During the Vietnam war I would have liked to have seen the civilian population directly contribute thru taxes, war bonds etc. Never thought that it was right that they stayed home living their lives while others were fighting in another land for them. Let the civilians atleast feel something of what the troops are going through. Some say, they were not fighting for me, I want no part of it. But think about it this could have been fighting in your back yard,

 

[Trotz]

I do agree with everything you said, During the Vietnam war I would have liked to have seen the civilian population directly contribute thru taxes, war bonds etc. Never thought that it was right that they stayed home living their lives while others were fighting in another land for them. Let the civilians atleast feel something of what the troops are going through. Some say, they were not fighting for me, I want no part of it. But think about it this could have been fighting in your back yard,

Hah, that's taking it too far. I bet the politicians are just salivating at the thought of introducing "War Communism" into the economy.

 

[Cliffy]

I do agree with everything you said, During the Vietnam war I would have liked to have seen the civilian population directly contribute thru taxes, war bonds etc. Never thought that it was right that they stayed home living their lives while others were fighting in another land for them. Let the civilians atleast feel something of what the troops are going through. Some say, they were not fighting for me, I want no part of it. But think about it this could have been fighting in your back yard,

All modern war is about protecting and acquiring corporate assets. Why should Joe public have to foot the bill. War is not about fighting for your country, it is about false patriotism, corporate interests propagandized and sanitized to appear like a country's interests. Fat corporate CEOs plan wars and tell their political puppets to carry them out. Naive young men and women are duped into sacrificing their lives for these self centered fat bastards. There is no glory in war, only profit.

 

[ironsides]

All modern war is about protecting and acquiring corporate assets. Why should Joe public have to foot the bill. War is not about fighting for your country, it is about false patriotism, corporate interests propagandized and sanitized to appear like a country's interests. Fat corporate CEOs plan wars and tell their political puppets to carry them out. Naive young men and women are duped into sacrificing their lives for these self centered fat bastards. There is no glory in war, only profit.

War of course is acquiring corporate assets, those corporate assets translate into money for Joe Public thru jobs they will bring.. War has advanced hip and knee replacements as well as other high tech stuff.

 

[Machjo]

All modern war is about protecting and acquiring corporate assets. Why should Joe public have to foot the bill. War is not about fighting for your country, it is about false patriotism, corporate interests propagandized and sanitized to appear like a country's interests. Fat corporate CEOs plan wars and tell their political puppets to carry them out. Naive young men and women are duped into sacrificing their lives for these self centered fat bastards. There is no glory in war, only profit.

Though I agree with you in part (in small doses), I'll take an extreme example to illustrate my point:

Let's say I was a German citizen of Nazy Germany. And let's assume I had the same feelings towards Nazism as I do today (i.e. repulsion). Now, obviously my first priority would be to try to prevent or stop the war altogether. I would recognize that I was in the wrong camp. Heck, if I could, I'd escape to the allied side and fight on their side.

Now, failing that, if I had to stay in Germany, and I believed the allies would eventually bail us out, then I'd be in favour of lower taxes so as to suffocate the Nazi war machine to a debt-grinding halt (and as it turned out, Germany did get bailed out). But if I were not convinced of this, then I would be in favour of Hitler raising taxes on a number of grounds:

1. The higher taxes would quell any illusions among the general population, many of whom supported Hitler, of the true cost of the war, and thus, we'd hope, quell some of the pro-war enthusiasm of Nazi Germany.

2. It would also ensure that once the war is over, in spite of the great losses from tax money flushed down the military toilet and all the destruction, at least the new Germany would have started off debt-free on a firm footing.

Now to the best of my knowledge, no one is going to come and bail out Canada but Canadians themselves. Looking at it that way, whether we agree with the war or not is totally irrelevant here. The goal here would be to raise taxes so as to balance the budget for after the war and also make the ignorant masses more aware of the real costs of the war, rather than just borrow and spend our way through the war oblivious of the real costs to the next generation. We are the generation fighting this war, and so we ought to be the generation with the courage to pay it. Why should future generations who'd have no say in this war pay for or war.

War of course is acquiring corporate assets, those corporate assets translate into money for Joe Public thru jobs they will bring.. War has advanced hip and knee replacements as well as other high tech stuff.

Well, if that's what war is about, then we really haven't evolved much since the time we'd profited from the Opium Wars. After all, getting all those Chinese hooked on opium was a money-getter!

I'd like to think that we'd evolved a tad since then and that we'd be fighting for justice, not corporate profit. To glorify it is sickening.