Jobu

Who will pay it back? Perhaps the homeowners who hold the mortgages? At a pretty nice rate of interest, too.

So the bailout itself has caused the credit crunch? It's already a failure, when it hasn't even been materially implemented yet? I agree with you on one thing. I would have preferred the government stay out of it, let everything collapse, and build it back up. Unfortunately, there is very little political will for a global depression of even worse consequence than the Great Depression.

You realize that the US bailout had nothing to do with the stock market, right? You are confusing stock markets and credit markets. Furthermore, there is no evidence this will cost Americans money in the longrun. In fact, if history is any lesson the American citizens will liekly MAKE money on this. No one is execting politicans to fix everything. But there are enough tools they have to soften the landing or, on the other hand, make it materially worse. The LPC and NDP will only add to the problem by hiking taxes and driving out jobs.

I don't have any problem with the economic record of the LPC under Chretien and Martin. I didn't have any problem with much else about the LPC when they were a fiscally conservative, socially liberal centrist party. Their problems were scandal and entitlement over the years. The LPC is not what they once were. Trudeau is another story, and Dion would be an even bigger disaster. His "team" includes Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh. That's some scary stuff.

So by that logic do you recommend that we increase taxes 10% to repay the debt faster? Debt is not the only issue. Higher taxes results in less jobs and less businesses, which means less tax revenue and a need for even higher taxes. An equilibrium must be struck. You are right, debt should be reduced. But it has been reduced over time, both by the LPC and the CPC. It is being reduced materially, responsibility and prudently.

So why did the LPC run $10b+ surpluses? Why not use that $ to pay down even more debt? You have to strike an even balance between spending and debt-repayment. A prudent approach is to limit spending to necessary areas, pay down high-interest debt, and have moderate to low taxes. You can't just pick one area in the abstract. Any way you look at it, there should not be substantial surplus.

The government's money is OUR money. So any time they make more money than they spend, whether it be on social programs or debt payments or whatever, we should get it back. There is no glory in overtaxing citizens.

"Proof" I am right? Ironic. Anyway, back on point. Dion answered the question, it took him 4 times to do it. It wasn't the question, it was that he had no answer. And more importantly, his answer is total garbage. He has no plan.

Wow, someone actually knows what they are talking about.

Why should we answer it for Dion? Isn't that his job?

I'm not running for PM. If I was Dion, I would have given the answer he gave in his 4th try, I guess. Not that I agree with the substance of it. You do realize that Dion finally did answer the question, right?

Sure it is. A budget should be balanced. If we're in deficit, it means we've spent more than we've earned. If we're in surplus, it means we've earned more than we've spent.

For the fourth time (this should be your lucky chance, it was Dion's), what flip flop?

Whether these are bad mortgages or not is irrelevant. If people started defaulting, whether the asset exchange occurred or not, CMHC is on the hook for insuring them.

What have the taxpayers had to do here? Again, you're ignorance is astounding.

But wasn't it Dion's hearing disability and poor English skills that was his excuse? Please. Any other leader would have answered the question, in all likelihood in about 25% of the number of tries.

Everything has rosy as Harper has made it out to be? Don't you mean the IMF, World Economic Forum and StatsCan, too? No one is saying this is a rosy environment. The point is, Canada is better positioned than any other G7 country to weather this global financial crisis that originated in the US and Europe. There is no way for a global credit crisis not to impact Canada. The point is, the relative impact is SIGNIFICANTLY less than one would expect it to be, and we are in a much better position than everyone else. If things are so bad, what would you recommend we do? Increase corporate taxes? Impose a carbon tax? These things will only make everything worse!

I attacked nothing. I simply pointed out your obvious ignorance. I'm essentially arguing with a 4-year-old. Understand the issue, then come back.

Right, because these figures aren't reported every single month in the same way or anything. Again, please do not argue points that require some level of understanding and knoweldge that you clearly do not have. Otherwise, you come across as a frustrated, partisan hack with a clear agenda, which isn't spirited debate.

Quite apart from the point that this isn't a bailout, nor does it represent any added risk, nor does it change anything but the substance of an asset. For example, say you own a gold bar worth $100. Someone gives you $100 in cash for that gold bar. Both are in the exact same situation, except that one person now has liquid cash, the other a less liquid asset. This is sort of like what happened here, only the government already insures these mortgages (or more specifically, CMHC). So in my example where the gold might be subject to fluctuation up or down, that risk is not a factor here given that it's present in both situations. In short, just as every expert on this subject has explained to those who are willing to listen, all this is is a liquidity issue. Has nothing to do with a bailout.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. I'm not sure why you just want to plug your ears and scream, but being rational is apparently not one of your traits.

Yeah, I suppose so.

I'm not running for PM. Did you want me to answer it for Dion? Because I have no idea what his plan is other than to have a few meetings.

The problem is, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is hardly a bailout. The government already insures all of these mortgages through CMHC. There is no transfer of risk, and no risking of tax dollars. I suggest you learn about how the economy and banking system works before illustrating your foolishness over and over again.

What bailout?