What level of tax increase would you support for Canada to increase NATO funding (assuming that, as a conservative, you support balanced budgets)?
In the alternative, what programs would you cut or eliminate?
Open military to non citizens?
- Thread starter Hoid
- Start date
What level of tax increase would you support for Canada to increase NATO funding (assuming that, as a conservative, you support balanced budgets)?
In the alternative, what programs would you cut or eliminate?
Good of you to confirm that you have no answer. Not that we didn't already know that.
So, according to the writer, if it isn't a club with dues, and if it isn't neccessary to contribute something,
then what is NATO ?
We are all sure how well that is going to go over.
Lead balloon time.
PM Selfie just can't get more stupid.
Strange as it sounds, it is the US that should leave NATO.
Let the Europussies sort out their own security.
Yes in combination to a large cut in silly spending on Social infrastructure (whatever that means) cut regulations on resource extraction to get more investment and expansion, increasing the better payed workforce, expanding the tax base. Encourage manufacturing of military equipment domestically, and buy domestically to recoup some expenditures through taxation. A start anyway
There are many places to increase spending on national defense without it being a directly spent in military, Hoid mentioned the coast guard, search and rescue, CSIS, RCMP, a regulated equipment upgrade annually, instead of batch buying. Opening up reserve recruitment numbers is a way to boost spending with a 30% savings.
Starting 2016 a multibillion dollar budget was set aside for social infrastructure with no real explanation on the meaning. The announcement of Billions of dollars being donated overseas immediately following the budget announcement, isn't this money better spent in Canada?
Starting 2016 a multibillion dollar budget was set aside for social infrastructure with no real explanation on the meaning. The announcement of Billions of dollars being donated overseas immediately following the budget announcement, isn't this money better spent in Canada?
Firstly, the Canadian armed forces should improve efficiency. Though I'm not a member of the Armed Forces, I do interact with members of the armed forces across Canada mostly by phone and sometimes by e-mail in my work in the private sector. I can say that one thing they must spend lots of money on is translation and interpretation between English and French.
I don't know this for a fact, but given the language barriers I've come across between English and French Canadian soldiers, it wouldn't surprise me. Though it is possible that they actually keep those costs down considerably by trying as best they can to keep the English and French branches separate. But as one force, they will always need to have interaction between the two groups on some level.
Once we add to that translation and interpretation costs and inefficiencies caused by misunderstanding between NATO forces, I would imagine that NATO administration probably spends much money on translation and interpretation too.
Again, we could keep costs down by always keeping our forces separate, but then that limits our military capabilities when most NATO troops don't even share a common language.
Beyond that, I think creating an international police force (IPF) with a maximum of 100,000 well trained and equipped men who would all have to know an easy-to-learn common language like Esperanto could probably save tremendously on administrative costs too. Beyond that, it would provide a fully bilingual force with a common language and each soldier knowing one of many different second languages. This would make it a far more effective force in its ability to communicate with locals and others in times of conflict.
Before we increase spending, why not seek out efficiencies first.
But getting back to the OP Upper Canada was basically populated by ex Royal service men, many of whom were plucked from Scotland and Ireland, served the King, and were rewarded with lands.
The ancient ballad Lowlands of Holland is all about this.
The ancient ballad Lowlands of Holland is all about this.
There has been Trillions of dollars spent on this problem has there been any changes in climate? Can the climate be changed if Trillions more are spent on it? 100% consensus by all "peoplekind" Death, Taxes, and Climate changes! :lol:
The Surface Combattant bidding process for the Navy is (hopefully) finally near completion after well over a decade of blundering incompetence. These are the replacement ships for the Patrol Frigates in service now and the recently paid off Iroquois class Guided Missile Destroyers. The last series of bids were all rejected as the Navy specs for various features were not met. Three bidders are to re-submit this July and hopefully, the wheels will begin to turn.
I mention this because there will be 15 ships built for a total of around 45 billion dollars. If the Gliberal Government does what the previous government did, they will announce to signing of the contract with "See! See how much more we're spending on defence, now!" Without actually opening their purses and spending a nickel. The Conservatives did that several times : announcing bold, new Defence acquisitions but not really buying anything. In the end, they reduced total defence spending and did not increase it as per their verbal contract with our allies (and the voters).
If you think that I am singling out the Tories for criticism, we just launched an AOR (Replenishment ship) from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City last November. It is a bold, new venture involving leasing a vessel from a private contractor (the Brits have similar auxilliaries in their fleet). The ship was fabricated from an ice hardened, double hull container ship hull that was built in Germany 7 years ago. It was totally gutted like a canoe and a whole new ship was built onto it. Well done! It was on time, on budget and a really good lease-to-own buy for the Canadian taxpayer. MV ASTERIX! It is in Hawaii right now on manoevers. The bad news, Liberal part is that Davie is not on their "approved" shipyard list, even though they have built and serviced a lot of our naval and Coast Guard vessels. This is for 100% partisan reasons (an Admiral was even fired for it) and the only two "Liberal APPROVED" shipyards are Irving in Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver. So, instead of having Davie repeat the identical vessel a couple more time saving the taxpayer a billion bucks or two, we have to wait for the partisan Liberal Seaspan to build a different design to be delivered some time ... way off in the future. Nice bit of dough to distribute on the West Coast, though. If we'd stuck with Davie, the second AOR would be in the water late next year for a shitpile less money and the Navy would be times more operational.
I mention this because there will be 15 ships built for a total of around 45 billion dollars. If the Gliberal Government does what the previous government did, they will announce to signing of the contract with "See! See how much more we're spending on defence, now!" Without actually opening their purses and spending a nickel. The Conservatives did that several times : announcing bold, new Defence acquisitions but not really buying anything. In the end, they reduced total defence spending and did not increase it as per their verbal contract with our allies (and the voters).
If you think that I am singling out the Tories for criticism, we just launched an AOR (Replenishment ship) from the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City last November. It is a bold, new venture involving leasing a vessel from a private contractor (the Brits have similar auxilliaries in their fleet). The ship was fabricated from an ice hardened, double hull container ship hull that was built in Germany 7 years ago. It was totally gutted like a canoe and a whole new ship was built onto it. Well done! It was on time, on budget and a really good lease-to-own buy for the Canadian taxpayer. MV ASTERIX! It is in Hawaii right now on manoevers. The bad news, Liberal part is that Davie is not on their "approved" shipyard list, even though they have built and serviced a lot of our naval and Coast Guard vessels. This is for 100% partisan reasons (an Admiral was even fired for it) and the only two "Liberal APPROVED" shipyards are Irving in Halifax and Seaspan in Vancouver. So, instead of having Davie repeat the identical vessel a couple more time saving the taxpayer a billion bucks or two, we have to wait for the partisan Liberal Seaspan to build a different design to be delivered some time ... way off in the future. Nice bit of dough to distribute on the West Coast, though. If we'd stuck with Davie, the second AOR would be in the water late next year for a shitpile less money and the Navy would be times more operational.
Last edited:
Do you mean like NAFTA?
And how does this help the consensus reached in the NAFTA 2% GDP spending minimum?
no there hasn't - but bless your heart.
this is exactly why we cannot take your word for whether something like social spending has been explained or not.
Good post Cliffy that I can fully agree with. There would be more use for them in domestic disasters anyway.