• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
480
dapaterson said:
My original perspective on this was that providing incremental care to meet the demands of a job that was in line with what anyone else would be offered, so I was less concerned.

Now, my understanding is that the nannies were previously paid by the Trudeaus (or someone else), and have seen their pay shifted to the public.  That's not acceptable, in my opinion.  Certainly, if there is overtime required because of the duties of the PM, expense that.  But if you were paying them before (a choice) you can continue to pay them now.

Hello Mike Duffie's (among others) housing allowance.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,326
Points
1,260
Speech from the Throne 2015, attached in English & French - discuss  ;D
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
480
I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,060
Old Sweat said:
I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.
Based on previous Liberal governments, I share your fear.
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Listening between the lines as the Liberal was interviewed on the panel about the ship building shortfalls this week it's exactly how it sounded.  They're going to cut back on the CSC in both numbers and capabilities as it gets closer, mark my words.  Liberals of olde.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,499
Points
1,060
jollyjacktar said:
Listening between the lines as the Liberal was interviewed on the panel about the ship building shortfalls this week it's exactly how it sounded.  They're going to cut back on the CSC in both numbers and capabilities as it gets closer, mark my words.  Liberals of olde.

And I fear that your V-Adm Norman has played right into their hands.  "The Conservatives underestimated".  "We are already running deficits". "Canada is a Peaceable Kingdom with no obvious threats".  "Koombayah".
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,169
Points
1,010
>an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities...

Why, yes, we'll hear the submission from your lobby group dedicated to re-purposing funds regardless of actual needs.

>...and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military.

Choose any 1.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
941
Points
1,060
A single line about Veterans. An ominous sentence about gun control, tying handguns and 'assault' rifles to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Being one of the shortest Throne speeches in history, they could have cut it in half again had they not tried to slam the Tories every chance they had.

Methinks the honeymoon is completely over for the Trudeau Liberals. Even the partisan press that got them elected is starting to question WTF they were thinking when they fell in love with some hair.
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,182
Points
1,040
Old Sweat said:
I fear this part "To keep Canadians safe and be ready to respond when needed, the Government will launch an open and transparent process to review existing defence capabilities, and will invest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military." is Liberal-speak for force cut.

So, you're all saying that we are not currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?

We are the bad guys here.  We gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  We bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  We pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  We preferred new ranks over boots for troops.

If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,559
Points
1,010
My fear is that we will keep all the things you just listed...and there will be nothing else.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
98
Points
480
PPCLI Guy said:
So, you're all saying that we are not currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?

We are the bad guys here.  We gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  We bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  We pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  We preferred new ranks over boots for troops.

If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....

In my experience, and I lived through the never-ending stream of force reductions in the 1960s, the Canadian Armed Forces when faced with a need to become a lighter, more-agile force cuts from the field force in all three services while protecting the spider's web of headquarters. Remember that the headquarters are the places where the decisions are made on what has to go, and experience has shown bureaucracies protect their own at all costs. Maybe the CDS and the DM, given proper direction and authority from the MND, can get it right this time. Or maybe the bureaucracy will just wait them out, once again.
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
I wouldn't worry too much about the HQs avoiding attention this time around. Leslie is on team trudeau after all.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
PPCLI Guy said:
So, you're all saying that we are not currently morbidly obese, calcified, and ill-equipped?  That being leaner, more agile, and better equipped is somehow a bad thing?

We are the bad guys here.  We gave ourselves enormous useless HQs that do truly nugatory work.  We bought shitty trucks that cost way more that they need to.  We pushed a 5th Gen fighter with no employment concept other than "it's shiny".  We preferred new ranks over boots for troops.

If we were a reality show, we would get an intervention about now....

WE also have constantly fought force change because of the need to protect the regimental system.

The basics of cutting fat and creating a more agile force are definately where we need to be going. However, there has to be cynicism since it's the same song and dance every time a new government comes in. Perhaps this one will be different, who knows.

The question then is HOW do we become more agile is the real question. Simply saying "cut HQs" isn't the only answer. Higher HQS are required but need to be rationalized. How do we cut the logistics train? Second/third/fourth line made up if civilians with 1st line being fully military? Close bases to save on operating costs? Get rid of the regimental system? Go back to the direct fire squadron concepts to be lighter?

The throne speech was a lot of platitudes, so we ALL need to give it some time before criticizing or championing and base it off what tge liberals do vice what they say
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,922
Points
1,360
Bird_Gunner45 said:
WE also have constantly fought force change because of the need to protect the regimental system.

The basics of cutting fat and creating a more agile force are definately where we need to be going. However, there has to be cynicism since it's the same song and dance every time a new government comes in. Perhaps this one will be different, who knows.

The question then is HOW do we become more agile is the real question. Simply saying "cut HQs" isn't the only answer. Higher HQS are required but need to be rationalized. How do we cut the logistics train? Second/third/fourth line made up if civilians with 1st line being fully military? Close bases to save on operating costs? Get rid of the regimental system? Go back to the direct fire squadron concepts to be lighter?

The throne speech was a lot of platitudes, so we ALL need to give it some time before criticizing or championing and base it off what tge liberals do vice what they say

I had a very good discussion about this very topic the other day.  Having spent a bit of time working in the "braintrust" of CALWC, Doctrine and Army Lessons Learned, I think I can bring a bit of a different perspective on this issue.

I won't speak to the Navy or Air Force although I can't imagine they are much better off.  My feeling is that the Army hasn't made the right investments in its brain to truly be a leaner, more effective fighting force.  What do I mean when I say brain though?

If we personify the Army to reflect the composition of a human body, the brain in this case is the institutional Army, concentrated in Ottawa and Kingston.  The central nervous system are the numerous Division HQs while the field force is the body composed of different muscles and organs.

Picture for reference and because it paints a thousand words:

Army_HQ.jpg


Somewhere along the line, long before my time, the Army had a stroke and the damage done to the brain and central nervous system has never been repaired.  The Army has continuously ignored investing in its brain and it's hurting the organization.  Organizations like CALWC, ADC and ALLC are widely considered career stoppers and a place where the leftovers go.  We don't, as a matter of principle, place our best officers in the brain and our force suffers as a result.  I'll just say it, our Army is not a learning organization, although it does a great job through smoke and mirrors pretending to be. 

On paper, we have a field force with three regular brigades and 10 reserve brigades.  Everyone knows the one thing all those brigades have in common is that they are chronically short of actual soldiers but always have a large number of officers kicking around.  Identify the smart ones with half a lick as to what's actually going on and move them in to the institution with a clear mandate, proper governance and lines of communication. 

Why do we insist on maintaining paper Battalions and Regiments with more officers than actual soldiers?  Get rid of all the dead weight in Army HQ and CADTC and get some actual brain power in the place and not just a bunch of RRBs.  To add, there are some capable people in those organizations but none of them have been given the proper mandate to move the eight ball and they have to step over a bunch of zombies to get anything done most of the time.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,060
After the Liberals attempted to paint Tory income splitting as benefiting the rich, it seems like that middle class tax cut they championed will benefit the richest 1%ers, more than the middle class they wanted.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06/middle-class-tax-cut-not-what-it-appears

Ten days before the election, Justin Trudeau pledged his government would introduce “as its very first bill in Parliament, a tax cut for the middle class.”

But strangely, Trudeau’s “middle class” tax cut doesn’t much benefit the middle class. The biggest tax cut goes to people earning $89,000 to $200,000.

And if those incomes don’t sound very middle class, it’s because, statistically, they’re not.

“The actual middle class is earning between $30,000 and $75,000,” says Guy Caron, the NDP’s Finance Critic, pointing to data showing 40% of Canadians income earners are in that range.

Fact is, Trudeau’s tax cut is more Ralph Klein or Mike Harris than Tommy Douglas.

The Liberals plan to lower the tax rate on each dollar taxed in the second bracket, which ranges from $45,000 to $89,000. So someone earning $45,000 or less, who has no income taxed in that bracket, gets no tax cut. Someone at the top of the bracket – earning $89,000 – has $44,000 of income taxed in that bracket and gets the biggest tax cut.

But also, people in even higher tax brackets – earning $150,000, $200,000, $500,000 or higher – also have $44,000 of income taxed in the second bracket. These elite earners also get the maximum tax cut. However, with a proposed surtax on income over $200,000, the tax cut is fully clawed back at about $212,000.

So while even an income of $212,000 gets some tax cut under this “middle class” plan, the biggest tax cut goes to an income from $89,000 to $200,000.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
Why is this a surprise to anyone? The Young Dauphin could to even define who the Middle Class were (despite two or perhaps three attempts by different journalists on different occasions), and Gerald Butts most certainly know that the true "middle class" are not Liberal voters; the tax cuts are for those who are more inclined to support the LPC.

And of course people in even higher tax brackets are quite capable of sheltering their income in vehicles like trust funds to avoid the tax man's reach.....
 

Altair

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,441
Points
1,110
PuckChaser said:
After the Liberals attempted to paint Tory income splitting as benefiting the rich, it seems like that middle class tax cut they championed will benefit the richest 1%ers, more than the middle class they wanted.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/06/middle-class-tax-cut-not-what-it-appears
Oh please.

While those making 89000 plus will get some benefits from the tax cut, it will still help those making between 45 and 89k a year.

The only other way to do it would be to offset the gains made by those in the 89 to 200k bracket would be to raise taxes on them by the same amount.

For goodness sake, giving the liberals grief for lowering taxes on those making between 45k and 200k. Oh the humanity!
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,720
Points
1,060
You missed the point. It's the hypocrisy of campaigning against income splitting, and then introducing a tax cut that works the exact same way. He's done nothing other than pull sleight of hand on the electorate, and you've bought it.

Also, I'll be giving up $2000 a year from income splitting to make that $670 (if I even get to $89k). Net loss of $1300.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Altair said:
Oh please.

While those making 89000 plus will get some benefits from the tax cut, it will still help those making between 45 and 89k a year.

The only other way to do it would be to offset the gains made by those in the 89 to 200k bracket would be to raise taxes on them by the same amount.

For goodness sake, giving the liberals grief for lowering taxes on those making between 45k and 200k. Oh the humanity!

Both income splitting and the liberals tax relief for the middle class are really and truly BOTH inconsequential. The liberals tax cut of $670/year is equal to the princely sum of $55.83/month and the conservatives income splitting comes out to $166.67/month. Neither is exactly bolstering the "middle class", whatever that might be.

Unless any party is willing to cut income taxes on the middle class is some sort of meaningful way than it's all just window dressing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top