Moonbox

So should the majority of our parliament (Harper, Ignatieff and Layton inclusive). Being the lucky suckers that we are, not only will we be paying taxes on this over the next two decades, we'll ALSO get to enjoy the benefits of higher mortgage and lending rates thanks to this. That's going to be an expensive principle to give up as far as the bond markets are concerned, and we're already seeing mortgage rates rising this week. The triple whammy of it, however, is that now we're in danger of having our credit ratings lowered as a result of the excessive government borrowing. Higher interest rates, here we come! I'm with you on that.

The GST cuts are better for during the recession. If they happened 10 months before that I really don't think it matters that much. There's no reason they have to be permanent either. Dion and the Liberals were the ones championing the fact that we were heading for recession. With that knowledge, they knew revenues would be way down. Knowing that, they knew there would be deficits and yet they still promised to increase spending and they continue to do so today. They're criticizing the Harper deficits, but then at the same time they're criticizing him for not doing enough to stimulate the economy. It's pure posturing and anyone with a brain can see it.

I think it's too complicated to say. I like to let the courts decide on a case by case basis. Sure, it may add to judicial backlogs, but I'd rather have them backlogged from keeping our politicians honest than I would with often useless appeals like it currently is.

Helping them restructure is one thing. Setting the precedent that secured bond holders are no longer first in line upon bankruptcy and that the union should get first dibs is another. This is political pandering that, in my opinion, equates to extreme political corruption. Obama is selling the country out to ensure he and the democrats maintain the good graces of Michigan, Indiana etc. Canada's getting a brutal deal as well. Like I said earlier, we're getting an equity stake in the new company, but we're being FORCED to divest it over 8 years. For us to make our money back, GM share prices need to go from $1 to $120ish. There's no chance in hell that we're to go even a third that far before we're forced to sell off. We're paying $10B to ensure that GM jobs stay here until 2016 (I think). After that there's no guarantees and there's once again ZERO chance that GM's contributions to our economy will equal a current valued $10B investment over the next decade. Obama and Harper had a chance here to make meaningful and fundamental changes to the way unions and corporations do business. Instead, they sold us out for a handful of jobs and votes and we're going to be paying off the difference for a long time. The best part is that the bankruptcy has tainted GM's image for a long time to come, and there's no guarantee that it will even survive AFTER the restructuring. GM's ads right now are PLEADING to people to keep buying their cars.

In a recession the only thing income tax cuts will do is make sure people have extra money to pay down their credit cards and debt. It's not likely to go to extra spending. A gst cut, on the other hand, doesn't help anyone who's not spending, and can only encourage (to however small a degree) consumerism. The spending increases were stupid leading up to the recession, the PBO is right in that. The problem is that if not the Conservatives, the Liberals would have spent the money themselves as well, as evidenced by their election promises and all of Ig's statements since then. The economists and PBO are certainly not endorsing their causes....

The CBC carries plenty of foreign programming. Commercial free radio is a pretty dubious proposition. I don't think Canadians are exactly going to die if there are commercials from time to time. Vast majority is pretty misleading. As I recall in March 50% of people polled supported its funding. Factor in standard deviation and that 50% can give a majority to either side. Strangely enough, most of the support for the CBC comes from the left. Actually that's not strange at all given the CBC ombudsman recently admitted a left bias. Is it surprising that left of centre voters support a state-sponsered left of centre media outlet? Not really. If you were taxed to support Harper friendly media, you'd likely be uspet too.

The sub-prime fiasco happened with a LOT of help from the government. It wasn't a purely private-sector mess up. I'm not saying everything should be privatized. I'm saying that on average, over the long term, it has proven throughout the world to be more efficient because (generally) it doesn't back losing causes.

I was reading the Globe today and found this little tidbit of information. Canada's stake in GM restructuring To summarize what I found pretty fishy is that Canadian governments are getting a 12.5% equity stake in the new GM in exchange for $10B in bailout money. For us to recover our 'investment' we'll probably need GM share prices to be as high as $120+ CAD (from other crap I've read). Part of the agreement, however, is that Canadian governments 'divest' their ownership of GM over set periods of time. After 3 years, we must sell 35% of our stake, 65% after 6 years, and the whole thing after 8. Now what do you people think the chances are we recover even half of what we're throwing away here? We'll never see that money again. The tax revenues from GM and parts suppliers will never make up the difference. This is so pathetic it hurts.

Yeah most Saturn models are based on Opel designs. They're still not the same brand though and I can't see Magna making a bid on Saturn. Saturns have a bad reputation regardless and I don't think Magna wants to get in on that mess unless they get a REAL firesale price.

Opel and Saturn are not the same brand. As I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) GM was planning to integrate the two brands by 2014. As far as I know they never did and Opel is not Saturn.

No there's not, else we would have seen it already when Martin was painting him as the bogey man.

I was merely responding to the other poster saying I was picking on CBC in a time when all stations are having problems breaking even. Like I said, CBC has always been unprofitable. It's always been unprofitable because it's always been unpopular. Check your logic on that one. If CBC was as popular as you say it is, it wouldn't be in the red every year. They earn revenue from advertising just like any station. I'm not saying people don't watch it. I'm arguing that it's questionable policy for the VAST AND OVERWHELMING majority of Canadians who don't watch the CBC to have to subsidize other people's entertainment.

You're right to a certain extent. I was just trying to provide counter-examples to a weak post claiming that Air Canada means privatization is bad. Some are, and some aren't. All governments, on the other hand, are. The golden parachute, however, is a good example of where the private sector can go terribly wrong. Total Free Market is a terrible situation, but private corporations are still going to be generally more efficient by their very nature. Large corporate entities that become too top heavy eventually fall unless they can keep trim. GM is a perfect example. That doesn't happen with governments. It's evolution. Government regulation doesn't make a sector public. Banking in Canada is heavily regulated yet still remains private, profitable and efficient. What foreign financial industries did in the last 5 years was, in my opinion, nothing short of criminal. In my opinion it was a total lack of government oversight and regulation that led to this mess. It was inevitable that this would happen because there was nothing that said these greedy fools couldn't do it. They should be in jail and maybe these sort of regulations will come, but once again regulation doesn't rule out private enterprise. The CBC has ALWAYS been HIGHLY unprofitable. The recession is not a good excuse for a terrible business model if you perform terrible during good times like the CBC has. It works better in areas with centralized populations (as in not Canada). Even so, if there was demand for such a service, the private sector would certainly provide it.

You could also take a look at the USSR, Korea/China and see how well the economies run there. The reason why the private sector runs things better than the public is that the private sector doesn't sustain losers. The smarter and better run companies survive. Before you get into the sub-prime fiasco, it also might be useful to note it was a result of an entire culture, rather than just a few greedy executives. Western society at large was stuck in a habit of over-spending and over-leveraging. The government encouraged it. It wasn't the public or the private sector that failed us there. It was both and you can lay the blame on hundreds of millions of people. For the record, I'm THRILLED at the idea of CBC being sold off. It's a failure. The fact that it's a failure is a testament to how little people watch it. Other than Hockey Night in Canada, it's a waste of a channel. I don't really know much about VIA rail, but I don't really see the need for it.

It's not convoluted logic. The majority of Magna's sales are to the Big 3 automakers. If not for the bailout, Magna would be a disaster. Nobody is 'hating' on this deal, it's just that the reality of things is that no vehicles will be produced in Canada in the forseeable future. Think about it. What the hell is Opel? What's the brand recognition in North America? Zero? I'd never heard of them before this. What do you think it would cost to start up dealership networks, production and advertising for a totally unheard-of car manufacturer in North America? I'll let you work out the numbers.

Considering that being robbed blind has been Ontario's problem far longer than it has been Alberta's, I'm confused at what you're saying here. The auto bailouts are a pittance compaired to how big our economy is and how much money we've doled out to everyone else. I don't agree with how they're being done, especially how we're financing over-generous pensions for greedy GM workers, but that's something altogether different.

I think you missed the part where we said it wouldn't be a Canadian automaker. The cars won't be produced here. The majority of ownership is outside of Canada.

Magna bought Opel with the German government's approval as far as I read. The cars are going to be made in Germany. Maybe some of the parts will be built here. This looks like a vertical acquisition to me in that Magna now has a guaranteed buyer for its car parts.

I think we've had enough polls.

Don't talk about intellectual impotence if the most substantial argument you can come up with is to use clichéd and meaningless labels for something you don't even understand. Intellectually impotent is posting on the forums with the name "KingIggy", thus making it explicitly clear that you're not here to actually debate anything, but rather to cheerlead Ignatieff and label anyone who doesn't share your hard on for him as the previously mentioned "Neo-Con" I can go on, but in the short time you've been here you've made it quite clear you're nothing but a clown.

HA! HA! HA! That's because it's always the upper-echelons in a company that get laid off first right? I mean, the execs lose their jobs, and then only at the very end of a company's life do they start laying off workers..... Right? Isn't that how it works? The wealthy also need public health care the most. I mean they're the ones who are the least healthy and least able to afford private health care. Right? It's also pretty normal to see people in $1000 suits lining up at the bank of Friday mornings with their welfare checks.

Silly poll. Could you add in: Politician who wants to pay down out debt first, reduce spending and reduce spending?

The Catholic faith has always always always be unable to stay out of politics. Pope John Paul used to say that politicians who advocate gay rights have a place in hell waiting for them. It doesn't get more political than that. The Catholic Church is one of the most backwards organization in the entire world. If you followed the Kerry/Bush election years ago you'd remember how much focus was placed on the piety of the candidates.

That's basically what I'm saying though. If you have a long history of work and you've paid EI for ages it should be there to support you. If you've shown a long history and willingess for work then I don't have any problem with it. You can extend EI to former Linamar employees without extending it to EI abusers, and there are MANY. You don't have to have some simplistic and utterly inflexible number of hours required to work as the qualification. You can use prior work history, recent employment history and current economic conditions all factor in to eligibility. 9 weeks of work being eligible for EI is too simple and opens the doors for massive abuse for the system.

I'm with Dancer. If you only work a few weeks a year and aren't able/willing to find work after that then you can apply for welfare. Welfare is for the chronically unemployed. EI is for people who usually work but need help covering their mortgage payments in between jobs should the unfortunate happen. If someone lost their auto parts job in Guelph who's been working there for 20 years, I honestly wouldn't mind helping them through the recession. If someone lost a series of jobs and they have a history of not being able or willing to find work, then they can line up a the soup kitchen and apply for welfare.