 DND told to keep war costs down in coming budget year OTTAWA - National Defence has been warned it will have to cover the costs of the Afghan war entirely out of its own budget next year, without any top-up from the federal Treasury Board, a political source has told The Canadian Press.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
In addition, a wide range of military spending has come under the microscope at the political level, said Kenny.
"Offloading the costs of the war on the department will have a major impact on just about everything," he said. "These guys want it both ways.
"They want to have a reputation of being strong on national security and strong on defence. Their idea of being strong is to make PR gestures when they're spending less than (former prime minister Pierre) Trudeau did on defence in terms of (gross domestic product)."
That can't be right. The CPC is the saviour of the military.
Harper wants more control? Who would have guessed it?
I said this awhile ago but this was to be expected from Harper. He promised debt repayment, tax cuts, increased spending across the board, and big ticket military purchases. I said either something was going to suffer or we were going back into deficit spending. Harper has chosen to go for votes and that means he keeps the tax cuts, debt repayment, and spending increase but to avoid deficit spending he has tightening the purse strings on the military and in effect asking them to "budget" during the war.
Harper has already broken purchase promises of needed equipment and shelved plans to replace SAR aircraft & Auroras as more and more money goes into the war effort.
Starcraft the evil said "no way" but as usual he was wrong.
I can only imagine the howls that we would be hearing if it were the Liberals saying this.
If we were spending 3 times as much in terms of gdp but were spending less, they would have said that Harper is spending less in terms of amount. C'mon derb, that's something they teach you to look for in university. Don't tell me you've forgotten
EDIT: Oh it's CBC, imagine that.
You didn't answer my question. Saying we aren't spending as much in terms of percent is a way to spin it. What is the actual difference in GDP.
If we were spending 3 times as much in terms of gdp but were spending less, they would have said that Harper is spending less in terms of amount. C'mon derb, that's something they teach you to look for in university. Don't tell me you've forgotten
EDIT: Oh it's CBC, imagine that.
The difference is probably around 1-2% seeing as we are spending about 1.2% of the GDP right now. We are talking a 30 years difference here so the actual amounts would need to be compared in adjusted dollars which is why they compare %GDP spending. You should know this.
As for the it being from the CBC its also in the Star.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/281849
They better look at the whole picture and do what is best for the men and women of our armed forces!!!
This thing in A-stan has become a sinkhole.
You didn't answer my question. Saying we aren't spending as much in terms of percent is a way to spin it. What is the actual difference in GDP.
If we were spending 3 times as much in terms of gdp but were spending less, they would have said that Harper is spending less in terms of amount. C'mon derb, that's something they teach you to look for in university. Don't tell me you've forgotten
EDIT: Oh it's CBC, imagine that.
The difference is probably around 1-2% seeing as we are spending about 1.2% of the GDP right now. We are talking a 30 years difference here so the actual amounts would need to be compared in adjusted dollars which is why they compare %GDP spending. You should know this.
As for the it being from the CBC its also in the Star.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/281849I'm well aware. I also know that we are spending the same amount now that we were at the peak of the cold war, adjusting for inflation.... That's why I asked the GDP difference.
You didn't answer my question. Saying we aren't spending as much in terms of percent is a way to spin it. What is the actual difference in GDP.
If we were spending 3 times as much in terms of gdp but were spending less, they would have said that Harper is spending less in terms of amount. C'mon derb, that's something they teach you to look for in university. Don't tell me you've forgotten
EDIT: Oh it's CBC, imagine that.
The difference is probably around 1-2% seeing as we are spending about 1.2% of the GDP right now. We are talking a 30 years difference here so the actual amounts would need to be compared in adjusted dollars which is why they compare %GDP spending. You should know this.
As for the it being from the CBC its also in the Star.
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/281849I'm well aware. I also know that we are spending the same amount now that we were at the peak of the cold war, adjusting for inflation.... That's why I asked the GDP difference.
Then were are getting far less value for our dollars. Thats why %GDP is the standard comparison. I don't believe we are spending as much as we did during the 50s because we had far more troops and equipment and bases. Either we are spending less or we aren't spending as efficiently because far less troops and equipment are costing us the same relative amount. In addition the budgetting is different. Money for Afghanistan comes out of the military budget as a whole. More money going to keep the soldiers in the field means less money to replace/upgarde equipment.
The article states quite clearly that Harper is already snapping the purse strings shut even as the war consumes more and more of the military budget.
If you guys are so gung-ho for military spending then this is the type of information that should be pissing you off because it essentially means Harper isn't doing anywhere near what you expected him to.
I don't believe we are spending as much as we did during the 50s because we had far more troops and equipment and bases.
If you guys are so gung-ho for military spending then this is the type of information that should be pissing you off because it essentially means Harper isn't doing anywhere near what you expected him to.
Only reason I plan on voting conservative is military support. I can easily vote for the NDP over here in Comox and give Catherine Bell a second round at parliament if the conservatives don't smarten up. It wont take too many posters to change peoples vote over here... the difference in a riding of 132 000 was about 500 votes. Why would the cons make such a stupid decision when they could easily win over a seat in a military riding (CFB Comox) with less than .5% of the vote.