TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Canadian Federal Elections 2011 - Official Thread
Pages (15): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »

quote:

Originally posted by jester Harper willing to increase the amount you can put into the TFSA, instead of $5000 it will become $10000.

only when the budget is balanced which will be in like 2015, if at all.

quote:

Originally posted by StereoPrincess only when the budget is balanced which will be in like 2015, if at all.

Do you think the Liberals will be able to balance a budget?

quote:

Originally posted by jester Do you think the Liberals will be able to balance a budget?

ummm. each party has the same chance of balancing a budget. it really doesn't make a difference who is in power. in fact the last time the budget became balanced was when liberals were in power.

The Liberals were guilty of misconduct with the sponsorship scandal, and they paid the price for it.

Now it is time for the CPC to pay the price for their contempt towards parliament and canadians in general. They have shown themselves to be the very wolves in sheep clothing that so many people thought they were.

The millions lost on AdScam (yes, not billions as may be otherwise suggested, but still disgusting enough in its' own right) pales in comparison to the BILLIONS that are to be squandered on the fighter jets and the prison expansion alone.

Old news, but Conservative bigwig Gary Goodyear apparently does not believe in evolution.

He's the Minister of State for Science and Technology. That's an important job, and having someone in there with stone age beliefs is a bit much. It kind of explains how the Conservatives can make shitty deals such as the new jets that are going to be hugely expensive, they are clueless about science and technology.

As for Goodyear's qualifications in science, he took some courses at the University of Waterloo, but did not finish a degree, and later became a chiropractor. IMO chiropractic services are worthless quackery.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/s...-evolution.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Goodyear

I suspect a number of senior Conservatives, including PM Steven Harper, don't believe in evolution and are creationists. Others are probably MPs Chuck Strahl and Stockwell Day (they are retiring to collect fat pensions (Senate next?) even though they were initially elected on promises to reform the government by reducing MP pay, pensions, and benefits).

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Speaking of those fighter jets: Nothing to see here guys..

I beg to differ...

POS.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-08.html

Claims by the Joint Strike Fighter program office and manufacturer that the Joint Strike Fighter can outperform �Sukhois� in air combat operations are impossible to reconcile against what is known about recent developments in Sukhoi Flanker capabilities, and the known design limitations of the Joint Strike Fighter. This paper performs a critical analysis of these statements against known Russian technological capabilities, tactics and doctrine. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the claimed simulations which yielded a "400 percent result" did not represent the variants of the Flanker which the Joint Strike Fighter will have to confront in operational service, and did not account for known Russian doctrine and capabilities intended to support these fighters. The only feasible explanation for such results is therefore that the simulated engagements were flown by Joint Strike Fighters against legacy Flanker variants with low power N-001 radars, 1980s generation missiles, warning systems, defensive jammers, and supporting systems. Therefore, a 2015 Joint Strike Fighter with its supporting systems is pitted against a 1980s threat without its supporting systems. Such results are only useful in assessing the effectiveness of the Joint Strike Fighter against some African or Middle Eastern nations and are clearly not representative of the Asia-Pacific environment post 2010. The reality is that the �threat environment� the Joint Strike Fighter will confront in the Asia-Pacific is very different to the environment expected and envisaged when the Joint Strike Fighter was conceived during the early 1990s. There have been significant technological advances in two metre band counter stealth radar, passive emitter locating systems, infrared sensors and high power-aperture X-band phased array radars. Moreover, DRFM jammers are proliferating, and Flankers now have the option of towed decoys like the KEDR, both diminishing the effectiveness of the AIM-120 AMRAAM which is to arm the Joint Strike Fighter. For all practical purposes, technological evolution has rendered the concept of the Joint Strike Fighter obsolete before it has even completed Flight Test or entered full rate production. This is a clear case of failed technological strategy on the part of the Joint Strike Fighter planning staff. It is now abundantly clear that the Joint Strike Fighter is not going to be viable in Beyond Visual Range air combat, just as it was clear from the outset that it would never be a serious player in Within Visual Range air combat. Improvements in the capability and number of internally carried missiles will not turn this problem around, since the opposing sensor and weapons capabilities will continue to evolve over time. The remarkable claims about Joint Strike Fighter air combat performance made recently by the program executives and manufacturer's public relations staff can be explained only if the cited simulations were conducted against 1980s Sukhoi variants, devoid of the capabilities of contemporary and future Flanker variants. As such these claims clearly lack analytical rigour and cannot be taken seriously.

1980s SU-35 versus 2015 F-35, still kicking ass.
Enjoy your failure, comrades.

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER

stolen from Jem:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible

That's great, but the esteemed perfesser forgot to mention that the seventh through tenth men are opportunistic multinational corporations with little to no environmental or social conscience who almost always find the means to exploit the taxation system so that the first four men continue to earn so little that they probably wouldn't be able to afford their beer even if they wanted to.

But thanks Mr. Economics Professor, for dumbing it down for the plebes to understand, I feel much smrter now.

Unless a truly progressive and visionary political party that is capable of uniting the hearts and minds of voters steps up to the plate, this election will simply end up as the next group's turn to feed at the public trough.

The entire electoral system needs a revamp, but alas, as a species we tend to only be prone to change when situations turn absolutely dire. I like my friend Matt's proposal that all candidates run as independents, with endorsement coming from political parties and not the other way around. Current federal politics are obnoxiously out of reach of the average Canadian, which accounts for continuing voter apathy - this would be one way to turn that around.

^^

Very good explanation...


But I can hear them now...

Everbody should pay the SAME!!!

quote:

Originally posted by VDub Everybody should pay the SAME!!!

Federal income tax should be set at 24% for everyone. Plus you would have to add in the Provincial income tax. True it be a bigger burden on the poor.

- Anyone making below $41000 (Ontario) would pay 29.05% instead of 20.05% [$29110 instead of $32779.50, loss of around 12.6%]
- Anyone making above $41001 (Ontario) would pay 33.05% instead of 35.15%
- Anyone making above $128000 (Ontario) would pay 35.16% instead of 40.16%

And why do the poor need to be burdened further, exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno And why do the poor need to be burdened further, exactly?

They don't.

They can do what a lot of wealthy people do, and work their asses off til they are no longer poor.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They don't. They can do what a lot of wealthy people do, and work their asses off til they are no longer poor.

And I like your tax idea...

It'd work for me...

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They don't. They can do what a lot of wealthy people do, and work their asses off til they are no longer poor.

LOL dumbest shit I've read all week.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They don't. They can do what a lot of wealthy people do, and work their asses off til they are no longer poor.

Ah, falling back on that archaic paradigm that if only you *apply* yourself, that you'll be able to work your way out of poverty and then the day will come that maybe YOU'LL own the company!



Right-oh, old chap, I'll have Stevenson in human resources draw up a brief outline detailing your heady rise from bathroom attendant to CEO of Barrick! Pip pip!

Clue in, the number of people who actually worked their way to wealth relative to the whole are the minority. Privilege tends to be passed down generationally, as does poverty.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam They don't. They can do what a lot of wealthy people do, and work their asses off til they are no longer poor.

You dont actually believe that do you?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno Ah, falling back on that archaic paradigm that if only you *apply* yourself, that you'll be able to work your way out of poverty and then the day will come that maybe YOU'LL own the company! Right-oh, old chap, I'll have Stevenson in human resources draw up a brief outline detailing your heady rise from bathroom attendant to CEO of Barrick! Pip pip! Clue in, the number of people who actually worked their way to wealth relative to the whole are the minority. Privilege tends to be passed down generationally, as does poverty.

I'm not talking about people who work their way up the ladder. I'm talking about people being financially responsible, saving, investing, and starting their own business to become wealthy. If not in their own generation, then at least climbing into the middle class, and passing along their good habits to their kids, who can take the next step forward. Poverty is not systemic, in so much as it's the corporation's fault, it's systemic in that people waste all their money on non-necessities because they've never been taught any better (in fact, have been encouraged to constantly consume), and then complain that it's big business and the government keeping them down.

Too many poor people sit around smoking their cigarettes, drinking their booze, watching their cable TV and complaining on the internet that they have no money while chewing on the pizza that was just delivered to their residence. Well no fuck, they've wasted it all on cigarettes, booze, TV, fast food, and a computer they can't afford. And if they've had kids, it's made worse, because they can't afford those either.

Did they actually think you meant that some poor dude will be a millionaire if he just works hard??

Hard work and intelligent living means that you'll be financially stable. Not necessarily rich but def not poor...



Orrrr I guess what you just said..

Lol..

quote:

U.S. watchdog issues new warning about F-35 design and cost Published On Fri Apr 08 2011 Murray Brewster The Canadian Press VICTORIA�A U.S. budget watchdog is worried the manufacturer of the F-35 stealth fighter keeps making too many late design changes and that Lockheed Martin seems unable to control skyrocketing costs. The Government Accountability Office released a new assessment Thursday, a follow-up to a report issued last month which showed the purchase price for the ultra high-tech fighter-bomber would be substantially more than the Harper government has estimated. Most of the public debate in Canada has focused on the eye-popping cost and completely overshadowed the more basic question of whether the highly automated aircraft can fly and live up to its billing. "After more than nine years in development and four in production, the program has not fully demonstrated that the aircraft design is stable, manufacturing processes are mature, and the system is reliable," said the report. The assessment also warns that the prime contractor has not had "adequate and disciplined" systems in place to "effectively track costs and control schedules." Washington's assessment is expected to add fuel to the Canadian election debate and opposition demands that the multi-billion dollar program be abandoned. The report warns that as many as 10,000 more design changes are expected between now and 2016, the year Canada expects to sign a contract for the 65 aircraft it wants to buy. The accountability office said the number of changes is alarming because it will take years for those individual modifications to make their way into the manufacturing progress and aircraft already on the flight line will have to refitted. It said the risk to the program is significant. The numerous design changes indicate a "lack of understanding about the design" and could lead to parts shortages and a messed-up supply chain. "Some level of design change is expected during the production cycle of any new and highly technical product, but excessive changes raises questions about the (fighter's) design maturity and its readiness for high rates of production," said the report. The Conservative government has been locked in a battle with parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page over the lifetime cost of the F-35 program. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay have insisted the government will spend no more than $9 billion to buy the jets and another $7 billion to service them over 20 years. Page says the bill will be nearly twice as high. The Liberal�s promised before the election to cancel the program and hold an open competition to replace the air force's aging CF-18s. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was asked about the jets during a town hall campaign meeting in Hamilton on Thursday and said there's a big problem: "Here's the situation I really want to avoid, is having to go to you as a taxpayer and say, 'Mr. Harper stuck us with a deal. He said these planes were going to cost $35 million a pop. I have to tell you, my dear fellow citizen, they actually cost $175 million a pop.' "No prime minister in his right mind is going to get into a situation where you can't tell Canadians what the darn things are going to cost." Defence experts expressed frustration last winter that Lockheed Martin was way behind in software development for the highly automated plane. Only four million lines of code out of a anticipated eight million lines have been written. Earlier this week, junior defence minister Laurie Hawn, dismissed the software development concerns. A longtime critic of the program, former senior defence official Alan Williams, said the new report is further proof the purchase should be at least delayed. "It seems to me that if Laurie Hawn is spending his own money he can take as much risk as he wants, but when he is spending the taxpayers' money he better be concerned about risk," said Williams. "For the last decade, an objective of defence procurement has been to move away from high-risk, high-cost developmental programs. We prefer to buy equipment as close to off-the-shelf as is possible. This kind of glib rhetoric is irresponsible." The accountability report warns that the program will strain U.S. and allied defence budgets well into the future.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...design-and-cost

Even the USA's own GAO is ripping into the risky delays and rising costs of the F-35 JSF program... I suppose Harper's people are still saying they will get this stuff at their original lowball estimate of a $16 bil lifetime cost?

Just ordered a pair of gigantic NDP lawn signs for my corner property in my predominantly Conservative riding.

This should be fun.

Socialism works well until you run out of someone else's money

You see, all those "corporate scum" types are the ones that not only provide jobs but also allow us to have the luxuries that we have for such a cheap price. Sorry to tell you commies that if not for them and their global buying power, the computer you are using to bitch about them would probably cost 10 times more and be 10 times less advanced, if it even existed.

Who do you think even has the R&D money to research these technologies in the first place?

Sure corporations can be corrupt, but no more so than the wonderful government that corporation haters seem to worship.

Corruption is a sad part of the human condition and it can be found in every town in every country no matter what the economic situation is nor what political system they use. So to me, id rather support the system that gave (gives) us the comfortable life we have instead of look a gift horse in the mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1

Well it's either them or the Rhino party, so.. Take from that what you will.

Yes, keep talking "Socialists" and "Commies" until you are blue in the face... that'll teach canadians where their loyalties should lie, wont it?

"Socialists"/Liberals/"Lefties"/"Commies" seemed to have done well in balancing the budget after they got in back in 1993, within ten years of the mess of a Conservative deficit they walked into that time!

And with our buddy here ready to plop billions upon billions down on unnecessary and unwise military upgrades and a prison agenda, where is he actually getting all this magical deficit reduction cash from?

Oh wait... we don't need to know those sorts of things do we?

All we need to do is give him his majority so that we are not engulfed by the diabolical socialist/communist/separatist coalition, right?

damn those commie left wing champagne limo riding elite!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.