Originally Posted by mike_302

I only looked into it more today because there was more evidence that it will cost more, and Harper's been defending the cost, saying "It won't cost more than I said", while the US is just discovering it'll cost twice the amount, they're unhappy, and it was pointed out that US laws restrict them from selling military equipment to other countries at lower costs than they pay for it... Harper says to Canadians "Nono, we have a deal with them it won't double the cost".

Ultimately, I'm going to make a prediction here: Harper continues to insist this "no extra cost" and it goes to court for years and becomes a massive cost anyways, to fight.

I'm also not against the cost so much as the government's lack of tendering in the project (they didn't look for better prices, and they say that was the right choice) and they are fighting to maintain a deal that is clearly going to end up in court for years...

Who would you have them buy the planes from, then? The other reputable sources - Western Europe, Israel, whoever has them in stock, etc - are going to cost a lot too. Would you rather they buy shifty parts from somewhere like China?

Buying military equipment is not like buying noodles and paper. For one, very few countries are able to sell them. And of those countries, even fewer are viable options.

It's just as important who (both as a political move - it can solidify relations - and practical - it can ensure quality and safety) as much as what you buy. This means its expensive, and there's really no way to get around it. It'll still be expensive five, ten, thirty years from now. It'll be expensive whether you buy from the US, Israel, Britain, France, etc.

The point is they need to get the jets somehow, and if it means going to court, then it means going to court - there don't seem to be a lot of other options. I'm not a military expert, but there is a legitimate need to replace equipment now and again (whether it is now or not, I don't think any of us of qualified to make that call). It doesn't matter if we are a peacekeeping country or not - we're still involved in conflicts and still need to maintain a basic defense system.

Time's better spent looking at how they're going to deal with the deficit, healthcare, education, etc etc - things that will affect the voter on the daily basis (unless the voter happens to be a fighter pilot).

... Silly MI.. I can't see the newest post when a new page is made

Edit: SO I post this message for it to show up! {ignore this}

The fighter jet point is still a major point. Again, I'm not disputing whether the source of the planes is right or not. I don't care what a government is buying, they need to look at their options and not just say "We're going to buy from here.... They said it'll cost this much." At this point, the US has been going nuts over the new cost that they were just billed for the planes, and Harper is sitting here in Canada, watching that happen and saying to us "Ha, yea, but we signed a deal so sucks to be the US... We're still only paying $75 million. Don't worry Canada, I've got your back." That is quite literally what he's doing. It's an important issue because all these Harper fans are advocating this purchase and advocating this Prime Minister who doesn't have the forward thinking to get out of this deal and look elsewhere which will end up with us paying $75 million more for each plane, or else going to court for years and RUINING relations.

Speaking of Paying $75 million more than budgeted for every one of dozens of planes: Deficits, costs of health care, education, and taxes...

There, I linked your important topics to the cost overrun on these planes Harper is advocating for.

Originally Posted by mike_302

I only looked into it more today because there was more evidence that it will cost more, and Harper's been defending the cost, saying "It won't cost more than I said", while the US is just discovering it'll cost twice the amount, they're unhappy, and it was pointed out that US laws restrict them from selling military equipment to other countries at lower costs than they pay for it... Harper says to Canadians "Nono, we have a deal with them it won't double the cost".

Ultimately, I'm going to make a prediction here: Harper continues to insist this "no extra cost" and it goes to court for years and becomes a massive cost anyways, to fight.

I'm also not against the cost so much as the government's lack of tendering in the project (they didn't look for better prices, and they say that was the right choice) and they are fighting to maintain a deal that is clearly going to end up in court for years...

You think the liberals aren't going to cost us more? They are promising money to students, people taking care of their parents and the list gets longer everyday. In the end, we will pay plus whatever else they waste our money on. The NDP are no better wanting to spend money on boats that are not in need of replacing. Plus the conflict is in the DESERT, not the ocean. The planes are older than probably most of MI members. Major airlines would abandon planes after this time, why would we put our soldiers in anything like that? It is disgraceful to the bravest of our citizens who protect this country. We are a world leader economically for one reason only: the conservative government.:smile_cof fee:

ROFL, oh you need a reality check.

Do you know how many years a plane is in commission?

Conservatives are the reason we have a world class economy? Do you understand how long the Conservatives have been in power? There isn't even a debate, and Conservative voters wouldn't even dispute that the Liberals were the ones that balanced the Canadian budgets to give us a surplus.

Money wasting? On education? On health care? On caring for an aging population? Sounds like what a government should be doing. And don't be so naive: The Conservatives are promising the same things (health care, eduation, etc.) But they're the ones saying they're going to spend on this AND cut taxes.

So. So. Naive. Your post wasn't even a challenge to make a rebuttle to. There are a lot of Conservative voters that would agree with everything I just said too...

Liberals want to increase HST to support social services. Can we really afford to pay more taxes? I'm sure most people on here don't have a mortgage, car payments, kids, bills and more bills. Most of us don't know what paying more taxes means.

Originally Posted by Misspolitics

We are a world leader economically for one reason only: the conservative government.:smile_cof fee:

Uh, I'm pretty sure the last few budget surpluses were during (and products of) a period of Liberal governance.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Do you know how many years a plane is in commission?

I thought this question was interesting so I decided to look up a few examples.

The F-15 was built in 1976 by MacDonnel Douglas and is expected to continue to be in use by the U.S.A.F until 2025.

The F-16 was also built in 1976 and is also expected to stay in use until 2025 by the U.S.A.F.

So both of those jet fighters have a lifespan of 49 years.

As for the fighter jets in question, the F-35 Lightning, they supposed to be put into operational use in 2011. The U.S.A.F has already decided to purchase 2,443 of this fighter jet and plan to make it the backbone of their of entire air force. Now, the U.S. isn't the only country expressing interest in this fighter as the United Kingdom has also contributed to funding.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this fighter is probably going to perform incredibly well and would be a fantastic asset to our country.

Originally Posted by jo87

Liberals want to increase HST to support social services. Can we really afford to pay more taxes? I'm sure most people on here don't have a mortgage, car payments, kids, bills and more bills. Most of us don't know what paying more taxes means.

OHHH gosh.

Most of us actually DO know what paying more taxes means. Weren't you around about 3-4 years ago? You paid 15% tax for YEARS before Harper came in and dropped it.

And not to respond with a bombshell answer like that, I will also say: Where does it say the Liberals are increasing the HST? Yea, they're taxers and spenders, but would they increase it higher than you've ever seen it? Not likely given the economic state of affairs... Harper may claim to be an economist, but he's far from the only one in existence (and whether he is or isn't is debatable)

Why do people keep saying "Liberals will bring about a deficit!" Then saying "Conservatives will reduce taxes!" then saying "Liberals will cost us more!" then defending the expenses that the Conservatives have been trying to justify. (also, tehehehe at this G8 bombshell that was released today... Oh it's blowing up in their face today!)

Originally Posted by doug

I thought this question was interesting so I decided to look up a few examples.

The F-15 was built in 1976 by MacDonnel Douglas and is expected to continue to be in use by the U.S.A.F until 2025.

The F-16 was also built in 1976 and is also expected to stay in use until 2025 by the U.S.A.F.

So both of those jet fighters have a lifespan of 49 years.

As for the fighter jets in question, the F-35 Lightning, they supposed to be put into operational use in 2011. The U.S.A.F has already decided to purchase 2,443 of this fighter jet and plan to make it the backbone of their of entire air force. Now, the U.S. isn't the only country expressing interest in this fighter as the United Kingdom has also contributed to funding.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this fighter is probably going to perform incredibly well and would be a fantastic asset to our country.

Actually, LAST time. I'm not disputing the F-35. In fact, other than calling it by it's name, I haven't made an argument for or against it. I've been arguing that the Conservatives have went about the entire thing the wrong way, and if Canada wants to buy them, democracy should take place, and the REAL cost should be tabled while Parliament is in session... None of this "We're buying them, we'll sign papers with the US and take them to court if things change."... That kind of dealing ends poorly.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Actually, LAST time. I'm not disputing the F-35. In fact, other than calling it by it's name, I haven't made an argument for or against it. I've been arguing that the Conservatives have went about the entire thing the wrong way, and if Canada wants to buy them, democracy should take place, and the REAL cost should be tabled while Parliament is in session... None of this "We're buying them, we'll sign papers with the US and take them to court if things change."... That kind of dealing ends poorly.

I know, I was just curious to the question and thought I should post the answers I found.

Granted, it is interesting. I knew that some of the planes I've gone trans-continental on, have been older than me...

Originally Posted by mike_302

OHHH gosh.

Most of us actually DO know what paying more taxes means. Weren't you around about 3-4 years ago? You paid 15% tax for YEARS before Harper came in and dropped it.

And not to respond with a bombshell answer like that, I will also say: Where does it say the Liberals are increasing the HST? Yea, they're taxers and spenders, but would they increase it higher than you've ever seen it? Not likely given the economic state of affairs... Harper may claim to be an economist, but he's far from the only one in existence (and whether he is or isn't is debatable)

Why do people keep saying "Liberals will bring about a deficit!" Then saying "Conservatives will reduce taxes!" then saying "Liberals will cost us more!" then defending the expenses that the Conservatives have been trying to justify. (also, tehehehe at this G8 bombshell that was released today... Oh it's blowing up in their face today!)

I believe what was meant by the post you quoted is that as a student without all the expenses of someone with a house, family, etc doesn't fully grasp the frustrations of having to lose so much money to taxes.

And yes it is likely that given enough time the Liberals would increase sales taxes higher than 15%.

They will also increase corporate taxes which doesn't help us to get jobs in the future.

Originally Posted by mike_302

OHHH gosh.

Most of us actually DO know what paying more taxes means. Weren't you around about 3-4 years ago? You paid 15% tax for YEARS before Harper came in and dropped it.

And not to respond with a bombshell answer like that, I will also say: Where does it say the Liberals are increasing the HST? Yea, they're taxers and spenders, but would they increase it higher than you've ever seen it? Not likely given the economic state of affairs... Harper may claim to be an economist, but he's far from the only one in existence (and whether he is or isn't is debatable)

Why do people keep saying "Liberals will bring about a deficit!" Then saying "Conservatives will reduce taxes!" then saying "Liberals will cost us more!" then defending the expenses that the Conservatives have been trying to justify. (also, tehehehe at this G8 bombshell that was released today... Oh it's blowing up in their face today!)

Yeah I'm sure you know what paying taxes means. Plus everyone knows Liberals will just drive jobs away from Canada and into China. Taxing corporations is never a good idea, no company will stick around for that.

The Liberals aren't silly about the economy. They're pretty damned smart, especially if they're up there campaigning next to the Conservatives in popularity... 15% is mighty high already. Without a majority, they'll have a hard enough time moving it to 15%, and when you say "given enough time" you'd be nuts to think that they could do it in the given economic state, +/- 5 years. So I'm going to NOT look at that during this round of elections.

As for corporate taxes: Again, if it;s going to cost the Canadian economy jobs, that would be a) shot down without a majority b) far too obviously stupid to do given the political AND economic situation...

Hmm, maybe that's why the Conservatives have been doing all these secret money dealings: The stupid stuff that a government spends on is best kept quiet when your economy is teetering back and forth on the egde of a recession.