Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Tory Budget Priorities


Hat Tip - Enough Harper

Labels:

posted by calgarygrit at 8:00 a.m.

19 Comments:

  • That is a great graph! I'm stealing it ;)

    By Blogger Steve V, at 8:34 a.m.  

  • Giving the tools to the military that they need after years of Liberal slashing, an increase in prison space to keep criminals behind bars, and tax cuts to corporations that will support job growth that the Liberals themselves supported..........

    Yeah, steal away there Stevey.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:47 a.m.  

  • Oh Anon

    I really really hope the CPC run the election on how important it is to spend our money on expensive toys for soldiers, excpensive cuts for rich corporations and expensive prisons for low level drug dealers.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 10:14 a.m.  

  • I like it, it's effective.

    It doesn't matter if it's misleading or not, it matters if it gets the message across, and gets the debate going, which is most definitely does.

    Good job.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:37 a.m.  

  • Steal away Steve!

    RV - It may not be 100% accurate (there are dozens of ways you can splice budget numbers), but I think there's enough truth in there that it gets the point across.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:42 a.m.  

  • Were not the fighter jets to be paid over the time of about 10 to 15 years .... it does not come out of one budget, but spent over time. If funding would stop for CBC, then there would be no change in amount spent in budget.

    [The reason I use CBC is that on some blogs they think the CBC is bias against the Liberals ... strangely the Cons feel the same ... so if both have no use for CBC, why fund it?]

    As for the GST on fuel tax, why not also demand the proviances lower their tax on the fuel. The Cons already lowered the GST by two cents ... which the Liberal leader said he would increase ... seems they might lower it more to please the NDP.

    I am also waiting to hear your opinion of the Liberals that owe Elections Canada money, if they should be able to run in this election. Everybody seems to avoid this issue. If they are permitted to run, are they no better than the Cons for holding Paralament in contempt?

    Open to be convinced to vote Liberal.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:18 a.m.  

  • Definitely has good propagandistic appeal. I doubt a lot of voters will take the time to recall the fact that the Liberals voted for the corporate tax cuts and the bills that required the prisons and only reversed course when they saw an opportunity to make political hay.

    By Blogger KC, at 11:46 a.m.  

  • Anonymous said...
    Were not the fighter jets to be paid over the time of about 10 to 15 year

    Accountants can accrue anything as long as they want. If we’re keeping them in the skies for the next 40 years then we can spread the depreciation costs over that same timeframe. That would make the cost of these jets look very practical. Problem we can’t pay Lockheed-Martin over a 40 year interval. I doubt they’d go for a 10-15 year period either.

    If both have no use for CBC, why fund it?

    I have no use for the stupid cluster*uck in Afghanistan, why fund it? We don’t get to cherrypick these things anon. The CBC was created, by a Conservative government, in the 1930’s to prevent a cultural take-over of our airwaves and entertainment industry by our southern neighbour. I don’t see CTV or Global trying to preserve our stories when they’re running shows like “American Idol’ or “CSI Miami.” I personally am quite satisfied with the tax dollars the CBC gets, even if the only shows I watch are “The National” and “Hockey Night in Canada.” By the way I’m glad you noticed both Tories and Grits feel that CBC is biased against them, to me this shows the CBC is not biased and deserves to continue as is. They are probably the last reasonably impartial media venue we have left.

    As for the GST on fuel tax, why not also demand the proviances (sic) lower their tax on the fuel.

    Except that that’s an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

    The Cons already lowered the GST by two cents

    Which coupled with increased spending over the past Lib government’s already massive spending levels got us into a structural deficit prior to the world economic crisis occurring, according to Kevin Page.

    ... which the Liberal leader said he would increase

    Yes, hypothetically in a townhall in Cambridge, ON, when the questioner asked what if all other methods Ignatieff mentioned failed to correct the structural deficit the Harper government created. For that matter Harper and Flaherty are also on record and on tape saying they would be forced to raise taxes, difference is the Libs aren’t low enough to use these in attack ads …but they should.

    I am also waiting to hear your opinion of the Liberals that owe Elections Canada money

    I think deferring payment from the Liberals is different from fake invoices and claiming deceitful advertising expenses from the taxpayer, or for that matter breaking advertising laws during an election. But that’s just me.

    Open to be convinced to vote Liberal.

    I doubt you’re really open to voting for the Grits. Being an ex-PCer, most of my CPC supporting friends would rather go thru a root canal without anesthesia. If you are truly becoming repulsed with the Harper government transforming itself into everything they once stood against, you would probably just not show up on election day.

    By Blogger Tof KW, at 1:17 p.m.  

  • Calgary Grit, why would you expect it to be truthful? It was created by a Liberal no? I've been around for a few elections now and every time the Liberals won they lied there way into power. Why would they change now?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:19 p.m.  

  • Please use this chart for the Liberal election campaign. Typical Liberal agitprop . . . many errors, little truth.

    Harper will use it to rip big gaping holes in Iggy's arse end.

    Maybe Harper will campaign on "the $45 billion dollars in CBC funding" in the budget.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:32 p.m.  

  • T of KW: Very well said.

    +1

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 4:49 p.m.  

  • Much of the prison money is going into refurbishment and improving of the facilities. So are Progressives advocating that federal prisoners live in sub-standard accommodations?
    Fighter jets - I trust the liberals will pull another EH 101, remember that one? Remember how much we paid to cancel? How much we paid to start from scratch? Now the Sea Kings will be over 50 years old by the time the last one is retired.
    Corporate Tax's - even with the cuts, federal income from corp taxes have gone up. And that is from John Manley (but I think you guys hate him now).

    By Blogger Don Mitchell, at 5:26 p.m.  

  • Ken Georgetti praises the budget
    Media isn't mentioning that much.

    By Blogger ridenrain, at 10:05 p.m.  

  • Who? This guy?

    http://www.canadianlabour.ca/national/news/canadian-labour-congress-president-ken-georgetti-has-sent-following-letter-finance-min

    By Blogger Gayle, at 12:40 a.m.  

  • T of KW said:

    "I doubt you’re really open to voting for the Grits. Being an ex-PCer, most of my CPC supporting friends would rather go thru a root canal without anesthesia. If you are truly becoming repulsed with the Harper government transforming itself into everything they once stood against, you would probably just not show up on election day."

    First of all I am not a Con, nor have I voed for them since Brian. Did you ever hear of Independant candadates? Probly not, you only think one has to be a Liberal, Con or NDP -- sorry you are wrong.

    You may show up and destroy your ballet, but at least I vote. You have judged too soon. It is people like you that make me not be objective in seeing who to vote for.

    As for your other comments; interesting points.

    Open to be convinced to vote Liberal.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:06 a.m.  

  • The graphic is effective but unfair. Ignatieff is going to have to build more prisons as well (he voted for much of Harper's crime agenda), and the RCAF needs new fighters.

    As for corporate tax cuts, they really do pay for themselves (I do not make this argument about other types of taxes). Since 2000 federal corporate taxes have been cut by a third, yet revenues rose from 23 billion in 2000 to 40 billion in 2008 (they fell during the recession). This should make sense when you think of where corporate profits go - R&D, plant expansion, higher wages and dividends. If ever there were a tax on jobs and productivity, its the corporate tax.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 1:18 a.m.  

  • 4-6 jets over libya...figure wouldn't want to use more than 1/2 externally. Figure 1/2 of them will be grounded between 2017?-2042. That is 20 jets for Libya-sized missions. The CPC 65 jet procurement would cover the whole rebelling Middle East. There was a Canadian ship used to send supplies (helicopters I think); details are a fog. USA sent many ships to Japan. I'm surprised an aircraft carrier could be useful to unradiated Japan. Which ship types are most useful to non-war zone logistics? Same for aircraft (forest fire fighters, etc). I still like supercrusing for the north so we can engage Russia in neutral territory before building ICBMs. What size of a country should we prepare to bomb with cloaked fighters? Even the bluest CPC member wouldn't plan a China contingency. Maybe ten Haitis is more accurate...rather have the ships and tundra/forest fighters and maybe 35 fighters. What are the operating costs for China's cheapy fighters?

    By Anonymous dual use, at 11:54 a.m.  

  • Good graphic but completely false. The true grahpic is here courtesy of the Globe and Mail:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-budget-that-might-never-be-23-billion-in-new-spending/article1952506/?from=1952511

    By Anonymous Jason C., at 2:11 p.m.  

  • The cost of the new fighter jets was calculated over a 20-year span by the Government, and over a 30-year span by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Oddly, the PBO came up with a number roughly 3/2 as big. Both used approx. $9B as the initial purchase price for the aircraft, but there are some differences of opinion over lifecycle and maintenance costs.

    There are debates whether we should purchase 65 jets, or just 40. But you would probably need 65 total aircraft to keep 40 operational at all times (due to the maintenance requirements of such complex machines).

    Not nearly as big a difference as the Libs and the media want everyone to believe. And over 20 or 30 years, it's not much over $1B per year after initial acquisition costs. A price I'm certainly willing to pay to keep Canada active on the world stage as situations arise in the future needing the might of the International Community.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:21 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home