 New navy supply ships too costly, government says The Conservative government has quietly scuttled the navy's $2.9 billion project to replace its aging supply ships, saying bids from the shipbuilding industry were "significantly" higher than the money set aside for the programCommentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Sovereignty being a priority my ass!
If our government was really all about sovereignty in the Arctic, they would fork out MORE money for the navy, build and invest way more in the Arctic, would expand the Coast Guard, and get us some deep-water ports and airbases ASAP...
Harper knows who signs his paycheck.
Yes he cut taxes, why shouldnt he, when we have such high surplusses year after year maybe it is time for tax cuts but I bet you would be the first guy to bitch if he raised taxes.....just like a true Liberal.
You are so full of shit.....that surplus went to paying down the debt...a total of 10 billion last year...get your facts straight.
Yes he cut taxes, why shouldnt he, when we have such high surplusses year after year maybe it is time for tax cuts but I bet you would be the first guy to bitch if he raised taxes.....just like a true Liberal.
Except it's always the Conservatives who have in recent history/memory managed to piss away surplusses and then it's up to the Liberals to get all that money back so Conservatives can spend it again...
You are so full of shit.....that surplus went to paying down the debt...a total of 10 billion last year...get your facts straight.
Yes he cut taxes, why shouldnt he, when we have such high surplusses year after year maybe it is time for tax cuts but I bet you would be the first guy to bitch if he raised taxes.....just like a true Liberal.
Ooooh such an angry little boy!
Calling me a Liberal is proof you've got your head firlmly wedged up your ass!
Everyone here knows I'm a hard-line, Trotskyite communist!
Or an anarchist
Or an America-hater
but a Liberal?
Anyway...
Almost all of the corporate-income-tax cuts from Budget 2006 and some of the personal-income-tax cuts from Budget 2006, Budget 2007 and Statement 2007 were cribbed from the Liberals� 2005 Budget and Economic Update. The GST cut was an �all Conservative� initiative that the Liberals sort of opposed, but probably would not reverse.
The pie chart on page 72 of the Statement, which received significant currency in the press, suggests that the GST cut predominated and that corporate tax cuts were the least expensive part of the program. This picture is based on summing the six fiscal years from 2007-08 through 2012-13.
The two-point GST cut looks bigger because it will be fully implemented in 2008, whereas the corporate cuts will continue through 2012. However, the annual cost of the corporate cuts will ultimately exceed that of the GST cut. In other words, the program is less populist and more favourable to Bay Street than most reports implied.
Surpluses and hence debt repayment could still exceed official expectations. If so, the Tax Back Guarantee enacted in Budget 2007 ensures that personal-income-tax cuts will be costlier than projected.
When fully implemented, all of the Conservative tax cuts will cost more than the Canada Health Transfer and the Canada Social Transfer combined. Table 2.5 (page 56) projects that �federal transfers in support of health and social programs� will be $40.1 billion in 2012-13.
Had the federal government not adopted these tax cuts, it could instead have doubled its support for healthcare, post-secondary education, and social assistance. This point would be worth remembering next time someone claims that medicare is inherently unsustainable.
The 2007 Public Accounts (page 1.7 of Volume I) indicate that the combined annual expenditure of all federal departments (excluding National Defence and transfer payments) was $40.3 billion. Of course, this figure will probably be higher in 2012-13. Nevertheless, it is striking that the tax cuts will cost as much as it currently costs to run the Government of Canada�s entire non-military side.
Table 2.3 (page 47) of the Statement indicates that federal revenues will be $288.9 billion in 2012-13. The implication is that, without the tax cuts, federal revenues would have been $329.1 billion.
Put another way, the Conservatives have surrendered 12.2% (or nearly one-eight) of future federal revenues during their two years in office. Given another decade and a half at this rate, the Canadian state would disappear altogether.
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/200 ... cuts-cost/
You can argue all you want about which pocket the tax cuts came out of. The bottom line is that we HAD a surplus, they gave it to the rich - again - and vital defense spending (aka Harper's bullshit promises) go un-funded or cancelled.
Get YOUR head out of Harper's lying ass and then get YOUR facts straight.
... and thanks for playing
This is another great example of The Conservatives not putting the money where it should go.
They try to spend money on leasing hellicopters for our land troops, but they will not spend it on the proper vehicles to maintain our presence and control of the waters around our country.
The hellicopters are important of course, but there should be investment in all elements of the military, especially when it includes our sovernity.
The Conservative Money Process:
Give tax cuts, but make the other levels of Gov't take it back from us, or just punish us and give tax breaks to its corporate friends!!!!!
I would have preferred them to keep taxes as they were, and just spent more money on the debt and Military. But he knows how to play to stupid Canadians. The average Canadian doesn't see the debt being lowered, or better equipment, they see more money in their pockets. So he's playing politics. Not a good thing, but did anyone really expect any different?
If I remember the posts from before the election... and even after, when Emerson crossed the floor.... yes. All the Cons here expected different.
Or at least that's what they tied to tell us.
I believe that they said he would be different from Martin, or Chretien, or Mulroney, but I don't remember them saying he wasn't going to be a politician.
I would have preferred them to keep taxes as they were, and just spent more money on the debt and Military. But he knows how to play to stupid Canadians. The average Canadian doesn't see the debt being lowered, or better equipment, they see more money in their pockets. So he's playing politics. Not a good thing, but did anyone really expect any different?
If I remember the posts from before the election... and even after, when Emerson crossed the floor.... yes. All the Cons here expected different.
Or at least that's what they tied to tell us.
Tell us or tried to convince themselves? As I recall the hacks were too busy chanting 'but the libs did it too' bit to be able to hear anything else.
I believe we were told to wait and see... to give him time to show he was different. Harper was going to be honest, accountable, do everything that the horrible Libs didn't, like take care of the military, etc.
I'm not seeing any differences.
And I've said that repeatedly.
I don't see a whole heck of a lot difference either. I do prefer what Harper is doing over what Martin or Chretien did, but it's not a vast improvement.