blevkog

NDIP,
You think I'm naive? In some ways maybe I am, but it's a damn sight better than being a brainless Party prat.

The world is indeed a dangerous place - and all the more dangerous because countries like the US play the victim card to justify fucking over other countries for suspect reasons. We are never going to crush terrorism through military means, the only way to defeat it is politically. By politically showing the world a better system - and by demonstrating real leadership, not the "leadership" of the bully stealing lunch money at recess.

Spending tens of billions or more on a missile defense system will do nothing but enrich artificial industries and give politicians a protected feeling. Protected enough to do something stupid, most likely. There is a reason that the superpowers bilaterally chose to not develop such systems during the Cold War.

I know your type NDIP, the kind that confuses "security" and "military". Here's news - having the biggest fucking military in the world does nothing to guarantee security. You don't have to dig too deeply into the news (but you're not too good at that, are you?) to get the sense that despite their increased military, Americans feel less secure now than they did two or three years ago.

Security comes from having sane foreign and domestic policies and good relations with other nations. Sometimes a military is required to help out in a pinch, but it is the last place to go for security, not the first.

So get a brain.

That was fairly restrained for you, Kev. There's not much more to add in the vain attempt to educate Ex-Ndip.... Just that at the time september 11th occurred (the alleged justification for the "war" on terror) the US already possessed the biggest budget military in the world, with the fanciest gear, estimated at 3 TRILLION dollars ($US) and it all was incapable of stopping a dozen or so guys with carpet knives. Money well spent? Hmmmmm.....

So if I understand right, you're criticzing Harper for wanting to return the role of the federal gov't to it's constitutional mandate under section 91 of the constitution. the feds should get outta social policy & beef up its role on security or in other words obey the constitution

mcG,
I presume you are referring to my comment on "small government".

If the federal government has no role in guiding social policy, who does? Social policy is more than motherhood statements from politicians and bloggers - it takes money to implement. And who is better placed to collect the dollars and initiate and maintain the programs? These social programs make the wealth of the country possible - without good tax-payer subsidized hospitals and schools we have a less effective and capable work force. And it also helps create a larger pool of consumers in the middle and lower end of the economic spectrum so that we can actually sell goods and services.

I will not deny that we need to update the military - and by and large I agree with the expenditures announced this round, though I have a problem with what amounts to essentially sole-sourcing billions of dollars of our tax dollars. What I have a problem with is these expenditures are going to come at the expense of social programs and infrastructure. Specifically, if we are announcing billions of dollars in new expenses we should not be announcing tax cuts while we are still carrying a huge debt. It's the same problem I have with the MacDonald budget in Nova Scotia (and the NDP suggestions for that matter) - when interest rates are low is the time to pay down the damned debt so that in the future you can reduce taxes without having to cut programs.