Moonbox

I'm so glad you're back. I was trying to put into words what I was feeling while I read that post, and you got it bang on.

I think in this case 'assault' is an exaggeration. Either way, it makes him look like a tool.

Not that I'm really in the business of defending Mr. Canada or his points, but I think your hypocrisy detector is malfunctioning...

Let's see...your last 4-5 posts have been: "You don't get it." Unfortunately for you, this hasn't advanced the discussion forward an inch, nor has it helped you prove your point. Sadly, "You don't get it" doesn't work any better here than it does on your parents.

As far as clever retorts go, this fails miserably. Not that we were expecting much though....

No surprise there. He's at best a used car saleman in my books. Whatever bad things I can say about Harper, Iggy, Dion, May, Duceppe, I've always held Jack in the lowest esteem. He's nothing but pomp and bombast but when you get down to it he's just an idiot in love with his face.

Ask yourself what rate the government borrows at and then what rate a bank or consumer borrows at. Once you've come to that revelation, consider the fact that housing prices have continued to increase in Canada over the last year or so. With these two questions answered, even a crap flinging monkey should be able to figure out that the scenario you're laying out to us doesn't make any sense. The numbers you've provided are fabricated stupidity. The difference between the housing market in the US and Canada is that housing prices tanked while default rates soared down south. Since housing prices have largely remained stable (or in a lot of cases increased) in Canada it's simply not true that the assets bought were 'toxic' like you're trying to tell us. I'll say it again. You don't get it. You don't understand. Every post you've made here has made it more and more clear you don't have a clue.

I'm in the business of trying to convince retards they are retards...that's why I'm talking to you here. See below: You don't know how it works. You have no idea. From how you talk I'd be surprised if you had 5 seconds of education in finance, be it personal or federal. If a loan is a liability to someone, then it's an asset to someone else. If someone has listed 'accounts payable' on their liabilities in the balance sheet then you can be damn sure the other party has an equal 'accounts receivable' listed on the 'asset' side of theirs. It's the EXACT same thing here. A mortgage is a loan with collateral charge. That makes it safer than a loan. You're digging a hole for yourself here bud. No. Canada gets their money back + interest while the debts are paid down. What you're basically saying here, in your infinite wisdom is that if a bank lends me 400,000 to buy my home, they're actually GIVING me the money and getting nothing back in return. Think about it. O RLY!? Hey how about you give us a cite for that and show us how we're losing money on this deal. Methinks you pulled that shred of wisdom out of your arse.

Which is as it should be, but does it not seem odd that the US has 10+ super carriers out on the water and no other country anywhere even has one? *shrug* It makes no difference to me either way as I trust the USA's navy to keep the seas safe but I do personally feel you guys bear most of the burden. You don't seem to mind though!

Actually we should probably let William Ashley and Mr. Canada have it out with one another here. Let's just see what happens. It's going to be like monkeys flinging poo at each other.

William Ashley...your lack of understanding continues to astound me. You have no idea how banking or government finances work and I'd not be surprised if you didn't know anything about personal finances either. Basically all Canada did was buy assets from the financial system in order to get more moeny flowing in the economy. The assets they bought were loans. Those loans get paid back with interest. Interest is what makes sure we're covered from inflation and time-value. The government doesn't lose any money.

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.