Moonbox

No. He's just a loudmouthed moron. I don't blame him for going to USA for surgery. I would have. It does, however, make him a giant hypocrite and highlights problems that Canadian politicians refuse to deal with.

I highly doubt it. Realistically the Queen has less power in Canada than the Governor General. If the Queen tried to interfere with our politics like that she'd be laughed off the face of the loonie.

In this I don't at all agree with you. The rates are how the banks can compete and where consumers should be making their choices about where and when to spend their money. Realistically, credit cards aren't meant to be borrowing facilities to carry balances on. They're meant to be convenience products. People get declined for cards all the time. The only thing I can really agree with you about on here is about the automatic limit increases. The banks are here to make money, and while it might not be the most wholesome business to let morons squander their earnings on crap they don't need, it's ultimately their choice. It's the same sort of deal with alcohol, smoking, video games and food. Let people make their own mistakes. Nobody is forcing them to do anything. Absolutely not. There are pretty big differences, however, between giving away credit cards and giving away mortgages, with only one of them being the amounts.

This is a whole lot of 'waah waah wahhhh!'

Yeah banking fees is another issue altogether...

That's true, and there's clearly some profiteering going on, but the interest rates themselves are not so much the question as it is the amounts they're allowing people to borrow. Ultimately, it's the consumer's responsibility to manage their budgets and to mainly blame banks for making it POSSIBLE to spend seems pretty silly.

In this case I feel I must eat my words fellas, because apparently that's exactly how it works. T Oops The next question is whether or not we need extended breaks in between parliamentary sessions. This is more the issue I have with the process, and I in most cases I refuse to believe that MP's work equally as hard in their own constituencies when they're not in parliament.

Haha I couldn't agree more. Another thing worth mentioning is what the environment is like when interest rates go that low. The interest rates are low because the economy is in shambles. When people lose their jobs, guess which is ALWAYS the first piece of credit that a borrower defaults on? BINGO! The credit card. Like I've already said in this thread, banks aren't charities. The increased likelihood of defaults is a big part of the reason why interst rates don't go down on credit cards. They may be making money off of stupidity and bad spending habits, but the stupidity and bad spending habits are not their fault. People who end up with big balances on 20+% credit cards are the type of people most likely to default on them. It shows an inability to manage your finances and pay your debts off. Only a desperate, stupid or lazy person would carry $25,000 VISA balance at rates like that. The solution is not to put yourself in that situation in the first place.

How often is the Throne Speech? Does parliament get prorogued at the end of EVERY parliamentary session? If so, then I apologize, but from what I gather, that's not the case. If that's not the case, then you have your answer on how our system survives without being able to prorogue.

You mean it spent $60B to help the poor and middle class and make sure they have work to do. It's the rich, after all, who are best equipped to weather a recession and who pay the majority of taxes. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. There's a reason why the rich are happiest with tax cuts and the most unhappy about deficits. It's because they end up paying for the bulk of it and benefiting the least from it. Your question makes no sense and is irrelevant to the discussion. The CPC can afford homes so they live in them. The homeless are homeless for all sorts of different reasons, virtually none of which are the CPC's fault. It's a free country. People can do what they want with their money after they pay their taxes. If you want to spend like an idiot on smokes, booze and cellphones instead of saving for a house that's totally your decision. Is that supposed to mean anything? I'd love to know what your situation was and who helped you buy the home...or what sort of dump you're living in. Care to explain how you did it? The banks are not Habitat for Humanity. They are in the business of making money. They don't WANT to foreclose, because that ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ends up costing the banks a fortune. They DO try to set up payment plans, but eventually they have to cut their losses and end it. People short on money are often short on money for a reason and the issues they end up getting themselves into are generally not the bank's fault. It's their own. You'd be complaining to the banks regardless of what happens. If the banks aren't lending to the poor, it's because they're jerks. If the banks DO lend and the borrower ends up not being able to pay the debt back, the bank's also a jerk for trying to recover their money. Again, the banks aren't a charity. Nobody is 'preventing' it. Everything you've proposed has been 'charity'. A lot of the time people are in the situations they're in all on their own fault. Simply put, a lot of them are irresponsible idiots. That doesn't make them bad people, and maybe they weren't raised properly, but that's the way they are. I know there are countless exceptions to what I just said. Regardless, the Banks, the Government and the public (myself included) clearly don't feel compelled to subsidize idiots.

You never know. California did elect the Terminator. I'd have a good laugh over it.

Communist Russia?

Nice try, except you don't need to prorogue to give another Throne Speech or set a new agenda. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Yes, that's generally how things work. People with no money can't buy things. Oh dear.... Rental costs may be on par with 35 year mortgages, but that's pretty irrelevant. The problem is that most people who can't afford a down payment also can't give a compelling reason for a bank to lend them the money. If you haven't been able to save any sort of down payment, its also quite likely that your financial situation is pretty unsecure. Nope. That just means they might have to demonstrate the ability to save up a down payment beyond 5%. If you knew anything about banking or underwriting, or if you ever had to ask for the keys to someone's house, you'd know why. Guess what demographic faces the highest percentage of foreclosures? the poor. Guess why? Because they couldn't afford it in the first place. Haha. More like it's preventing the poor from being pushed into bad situations that they've already shown they can't afford.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you couldn't do anything without a formal agenda. Parliament has always functioned within the agenda and never added anything or subtracted anything in between...that's how you're saying it is, right? Here's an idea...crazy as it may be: Give another Throne Speech and set a new agenda at the end of the previous one. I wish it worked that way in the real world. "Sir I met my target for the year yesterday. I'm going to take the rest of the year off with pay. Thanks."

That's about how I feel Shady. The job security, benefits and pension of federal civil servants are generally far beyond that which similarly qualified people get in the private sector. I'll vote for anyone who's looking to cut expenses and deal tough with those people.

Parliament would remain in session until either an election or recess. WOW! That was hard to answer wasn't it!?!?!?

I wasn't talking about Zimbabwe either. I was talking about us and those same neighbours. Prorogation is not at all necessary. Life would go on in Canada without it.

I think you missed my sarcasm in my last post... It's only because the government chooses to not have enough to do. Parliament isn't an assembly line, and we NEVER run out of problems to look after. Multiple nations' governments also swindle their people for millions and go soft of corruption. The fact that other governments do it is hardly a point for its legitimacy.

So...the free-market fundamentalists are in cahoots with the socialists. Scary....

LOL...So THAT'S what proroguing is for. Now I get it! Thanks Smallc! What would I do without you!?!? I'm sure everyone could use an extra month or so of paid time off at the end of the year for some deep soul searching. The rest of us, however, seem to get by without it. Funny that....

I'm pretty much done arguing on this thread as we're just going to keep repeating ourselves. To me it seems that you take particular exception to this because Harper did it and you've made it clear you have issues with him. As for the precedent that you 'think' has been established, and its potential to derail Canadian democracy, that's based on some bad assumptions. I've listed above how silly I think your scenarios are and I won't bother repeating it again. I'd be happier to see an end to proroguing altogether as I think it shows blatant contempt for voters, but that's just my opinion.

I lol'd

Yeah...that had everything to do with Chretien, and nothing to do with the fact that Montreal wanted nothing to do with seperation....

Okay. It's just as likely however, that the GG would have dissolved parliament and we would have gone to our second election, which could very like have ended up with a CPC majority. Either way, you still haven't convinced me on the dangerous precedent. The circumstances of the boondoggle last year were unsual in numerous ways. First, it was immediately after an election that gave the current gov't a stronger mandate than it had last time. Second, it was at the onset of a recession. The governor general is there to prevent the scenarios you are throwing at us. I know the role is largely symbolic, but there are potential exceptions. If not, what's the point in having her at all?