I'll believe it when I see it.
Justin Trudeau hints at boosting Canada’s military spending
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 22,376
- Points
- 1,260
I’m not a policy guy, I’m only reiterating what has been a burning issue for Republicans for a while regarding Canada and its relative freeloading.
I suspect you will see 2.1% in PP’s first budget just to pour oil on the waters, or at least ensuring the dildo of consequences is somewhat lube’d
It’s relative chicken feed compared to the programs you already fund.
- Reaction score
- 22,841
- Points
- 1,360
Don’t kid yourself, calculus, until Canada is physically attacked in some manner like the U.S. was on 9/11, there is no meaningful ‘coming around’ for any statistically significant amount of Canadian’s to actually influence the square root of SFA. Canadians are quite happy to accept miserable levels of productivity from their federal public service at a cost mor more than TWICE what Canada spends on its defence, ie. ~3.5% GDP for a milquetoast bureaucracy. Canada needs a good swift kick of reality in its ass to actually appreciate that it’s a pontificating moocher of a nation.
DAMN that was a truckload of common sense in that comment. Bravo sir , I hope you were not flying while typing
That would be an excellent explanation that I would love to hear…
- Reaction score
- 2,280
- Points
- 1,160
That’s the moment we unleash our attack.
- Reaction score
- 19,903
- Points
- 1,280
PrairieFella
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,014
- Points
- 760
This is exactly why I've said for years we need nukes.
I agree with pretty much every thing you have said about the public service, but on the issue of Canadians and their willingness to support increased spending, polling suggests they have in fact "come around":
3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows
Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.
They appear to have arrived at this conclusion organically, based on the current world order, not anything Trump has said.
- Reaction score
- 19,903
- Points
- 1,280
Let’s be honest - Canada was always the impact area for incoming.
I'll take the bet on this. The last conservative government didn't even spend 1.5% during a war. That's an accomplishment, if you think about it. The calculation was that they could simply participate enough to avoid scrutiny. Pay in blood what they didn't want to pay in dollars. They didn't put off any of their agenda to fund defence spending. No tax cuts were delayed or deferred. Harper signed on the 2% defence spending target, the same way that Chretien and Martin signed on climate targets: problems for future governments 10 years away.
Now the bill is coming due.
But now we don't just have the $26B more on defence to spend. There's also a $40B deficit to close. So the question becomes where to find $70B to balance the books and pay for more defence spending. This before paying for any tax cuts the Conservatives want.
Moreover, just one line item in the budget is due to swallow everything else. OAS alone will be $100B by the end of decade. And it is a larger bill than Child Benefits, the Defense Budget and all the Green spending, COMBINED.
You'll hear, government efficiency and carbon tax. But laying off tens of thousands of public servants will save a few billion per year only. And the carbon tax, doesn't go in federal general revenue, so it doesn't change the budget balance.
Both our parties have taken defence for granted. And when faced with a choice they put their priorities first. Conservatives with tax cuts. Liberals with social spending. They aren't very well prepared for the new world where the hole just went from $40B to $70B.
Poilievre hitting 2.1% would basically mean giving up every one of his tax cuts but the carbon tax. Basically cutting most of Trudeau's programs and then some, just to balance the budget and pay for increased defence spending. I predict he will try to do exactly what Harper did. Hope to trade blood for exemption on dollars.
Added wrinkle. Our procurement system sucks because at the core of it, the system prioritizes pork barreling with regional and industrial benefits. This keeps most of our defence spending inside Canada. We even get companies like Boeing and Lockheed to spend 100% equivalent of what we buy, in Canada, through offsets. Telling shipbuilders in Halifax they'll have less work, have to take an OAS cut, bear possibly higher income taxes, all to keep American workers employed is a tough sell. No politician wants that gig. And the one Liberal MND who came up with a plan to hit 2% lost the job:
Anita Anand ousted as Defence Minister because proposed policy update too costly, say sources
Reworking of the defence policy update is underway after the document proposed by National Defence was deemed to be unrealistic.
ottawacitizen.com
I agree with you that American negotiators will be absolutely savage. But the idea that Poilievre is enthusiastic and ready for this is doubtful. And I think the panic will set in when they realize that simply being conservative won't get a pass this time. Having to blow up most their agenda to pay for this will be soul sucking.
- Reaction score
- 2,280
- Points
- 1,160
Whether it’s Liberals or Conservatives they will commit and then lie. When it comes to defence that’s what they do. And if OAS hit 100 billion, they won’t pay that either…
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
The reality is plainly simple - we either spend more on defence (as we should) or the US will make us 2nd tier Allies and trading partners.
Once this wheel is in motion, it won’t be stopped, whether Trump lasts only 4yrs or 8 before the Dems get back in. If it starts, the Dems won’t reverse it, it will be too late.
Hand wringing and saying we don’t have the money simple won’t matter, won’t cut it, to the US or ANY of our European NATO allies or Japan/South Korea/Australia. The Euro’s see what’s coming and they are preparing for it and if throwing US under the bus to curry favour with the Trump is the price of doing business, they will do it.
Does anyone exactly think 4yrs from now, whether Trump is still here or gone that the world will be a safer place than it is right now? Will it be safer after the end of the following US election than it is right now?
The answer is overwhelmingly no, it won’t be.
EDIT:
I’m adding a bit more here.
Thanks to the immigration numbers brought forward by this current government, our traditional cultural ties to the US are fading and fraying. We are turning cultural more to south-east Asia than to Euro-Central-South American. As this goes over more forward, it will be more and more easy for the US to view us more and more different than them. The result of this change in perception by the US will not work in our favour, it will work against us.
Gone are the days of a couple of Irish descendent PM’s/President’s singing ‘When Irish Eyes are Smiling’ on stage together on St Paddy’s Day.
Trying to think of where he would be a good fit, but any trade I can think of it just sounds like an insult to that trade...
So infantry it is!! I'd use him as a human shield any day!
Remember when both Germany AND Japan approached Canada about supplying them with LNG, and Justin straight up said to the cameras "There was no business case" in even exploring the possibility of doing so...
Whether it's him, or the Deputy PM - our shrinking and shitty economy 'is doing amazing' and 'doing so much better than other G7 countries'
He says what he's supposed to say. If we took a transcript of everything he's said while in office, he wouldn't seem like a bad PM at all! But his goals have been clear for years now, he just can't say those out loud...
Do you know how much corruption we'd have to stomp out for us to comfortably afford to pay a whopping 2%!?? Ain't gonna happen with this crew in charge
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
But this crew won't be in charge by May. The opposition parties will force an election having voting no confidence against Trudeau's budget in March/April.
No one in Canada holds an election between now and April 15-May 1. Too many people won't get out and vote in Dec/Jan/Feb/Mar in this country, we've gone soft.
This isn't a function of partisan politics per se. Not spending on defence has bipartisan consensus in Canada. The only thing that ever changes between parties is rhetoric.
The problem is that the public just doesn't agree. Some will say there's support for defence spending now. But I guarantee you that's not at the extra $30B in taxes or cuts they have to bear.
As for the $100B in OAS, that's not just committed. Unless something changes that is baked in with the current rates we pay and our demographics. So the debate we're about to have is whether caving to American demands for higher defence spending is worth half an OAS cheque.
- Reaction score
- 6,516
- Points
- 1,040
They can do that pretty safely, as we don't actually have people to scale up spending that quickly. Fortunately I think NATO tracks actual spending, not just intentions, so if $15B or so got returned every year (or deferred to out years) it wouldn't count.I suspect you will see 2.1% in PP’s first budget just to pour oil on the waters, or at least ensuring the dildo of consequences is somewhat lube’d
It’s relative chicken feed compared to the programs you already fund.
A lot of that is the lack of people (in DND, PSPC, IC etc) to run the process gauntlet, plus the TBS approvals etc, and that's all before a contract is even in place. A lot of buys seem to be delayed by a year or more now once a contract is signed anyway, so it's not like a switch that gets flipped to dump NOS in the engine; it's more like a giant slow speed diesel that is in the double digit RPMs.
- Reaction score
- 2,048
- Points
- 1,260
The OAS is a result of the last 3 decades of the CPP under collecting from those that contribute to it. The CPP contributions were set to low for decades and decades and the OAS was used in essence to offset this shortfall.
US Social Security contributions max out at 168,000$/yr in 2024 - the CPP max limit is 65,000$/yr - less than 40% of the US max salary cap out.
Social Security is 6.2% of salary and Canada has moved up to 5.95%, lower than the US contribution rate.
A teacher/police officer/firefighter, etc earning 100k/yr stops contributing into CPP once they hit 65,000 in taxable income (each person gets a 3,500/yr exemption for some stupid reason). This results in the CDN paying $3,867.50 into CPP for their 'forced' retirement plan. That same person in the US earning 100k/yr would pay $6,200/yr. A difference of 2,332.50/yr - add that up over an entire working career and you can see the massive difference in Retirement Income that individual would receive in the US vs Canada. The OAS is used to make up that shortfall in retirement income coming from the Feds. Its a way for the CDN to be 'beholden' to the great, ever giving, ever kind Canadian Federal Government.
EDIT: in both countries the self-employed pay both sides of the SS/CPP amounts - 12.4% in the US and 11.9% in Canada. Not a very kind, pro-business environment for the small business person.
Similar threads
- Article
