fellowtraveller

I don't understand the questions or your answers.

No, there is no conflict of interest in your example. If there were, it would further suggest that it would be imprudent for any Minsiter to have any connection or background or experience in their suject portfolio. So, no lawyers or law enforecement experience permitted as Minister of Justice or Public Security Nobody with any type of military background in Veterans Affairs of Defence Nobody from the Mritimes in Fisheries and Oceans Nobdoy who ever paid a utility bill in Energy..... etc.

Why is it necessary to have completely paid off your mrotgage by retirement? All that is required is to have some significant equity. Having that at least provides two options unavailable to lifetime renters: using the equity to either buy something less expensive outright or using the interest from the equity or lump sum to pay your rent for a couple of decades. The very last place I want to be when on a fixed income is to not have any control over housing choices. No, I am talking about having some control over my finances at all times, instead of being at the mercy of my landlord. Property values only matter if you move. In the meantime, you are still paying for a debt free future by paying down your mortgage. I still need a place to live, and at some point I want the cost of that place to be as low as possible. The monthly nut that is bearable at 35 is not bearable at 65. I cannot address the problems of you having dumb clients who buy high in the wrong markets. I do know it is entirely feasible to have somebody else build equity in rented real estate, and I speak from personal experience. If additonal equity stumbles along via increased prices, I'll enjoy that as a bonus too.

This is the kind of thinking that makes Manitoba great..... I pay for the service every month and can watch and not watch whatever and whenever I wish. I can also legally record and replay any of it, as long as I do not resell. If I am somehow obliged in BubbaWorld to watch everything presented, do I get a refund if I do not watch all the material presented?

Yep.And in the meantime, Harper is doing what he can to address at least some of the inequity in representation. It is interesting to note those here that resent and oppose even that minimum sop to representation by population.

Nothing happened to them, it is still the realm of the far right and hardcore Christians, some of whom used to be in the Tories. Much of their supposed popularity is pure, unadulterated media hyperbole and fabrication. The reality is that Alberta and Alberta voters are no different than other Canadians, they are happiest in the middle. And lo and behold, now the Cons have purged themselves of their own right, moved to the middle(sound familiarly like a guy named Harper?)and in the process absorbed a whole bunch of centrists from the Liberals. The hard right was and is always small in number, but it suits media and particularly media from outside the province to pretend otherwise. It gets worse for Wildrose. The Christian groups are sick of losing. They voted for Ted Morton in the 2006 leadership race and lost. They backed the Wildrose earlier and now know that won't get them anything. Morton is a spent force in the Tories, he will never recover from the double leadership asskickings. The churchies will be back quietly in the Tory tent soon - but now they have no champion inside...... so they'll have to accept the moderate Redford too. Lots of credit to Stelmach, he quietly engineered a lot of this prior to departing. I don't think he predicted Redord would win, but it doesn't really matter since her and Gary Mar share much the same politics.

What, Quebec isn't concerned about Ontario, BC and ABs diminished influence?

and what is to be talked about? The most important topic ahead for Alberta and all other provinces is equalization

The increase in NDP support is pretty easy to understand when you think of the Liberal freefall: where are those voters going? What s interesting is not that the NDP would pick up some popular vote, it is only natural that some Libs would refuse to support the Cons. The Libs had 26% of the popular vote last provincial election, that is a lot of votes up for grabs. What is interesting is that many Libs have basically given up on their brand and have become Red Tories. I think it puts the Cons into a lock for election next year, since Wildrose has been isolated and marginalized already. The portion of former Libs that migrate to the NDP will not result in many if any more seats than their current 2. Having Brian Mason remain as NDP leader is an advantage for all the other parties.

You left out a few of advantages to the home buyer: 1) at the end of the 25 years the homebuyer pays no rent and no mortgage, a very significant advantage at retirement. The renter continues to pay somebody elses mortgage, permanently. 2) after a few years the homeowner has access to the growing equity in the house (not generated by the house rising in value but by payment of principal). This is an excellent source of cheap money unavailable to the renter. Some that are homeowners and have some equity use it to buy rental properties, to be rented and paid for by others. 3) homeowners control a large investment with a relatively small downpayment, and have the opportunity to earn very large tax free returns on that small down payment- not available to renters. If the value of the home drops, they still have a place to live that they would have bought in any case. 4) If you choose a longer term mortgage your accomodation costs are more or less secured for five years or so. Where I live, there are no rent controls and you can go from cheap rent to major cost quickly.

Interesting that they both have the same disdain for their viewers. My wife timed the movie intro at 31 minutes recently in Chicago. That is a long time to a captive audience. I don't know how they get away with it on TV, where a 90 minute movie clocks in at 3 hours.

Yes, for up to a few weeks as in 2008, when the losers decided that the govt policy on political funding gravythe economy meant that the country was in immediate grave danger.

Not true. Layton was quite clear he would form a 'cooperative' after the last election if the Tories had a minority. I suspect that helped Harper considerably.

I prefer Boardwalk Empire. AMC has more commercials than any network anywhere, while Boradwalk is shown commercial free on HBO. It doesn't matter much really, we PVR everything we watch so we can view at our leisure, and eliminate all ads. AMC also owns theatre chains in the US, and have extremely long ads before their shows. Very irritating.

Every citizen must have the right to vote and that vote must have the same weight as that of every other citizen. Quebec would have it differently, as would the NDP. If that is to be the basis of our country, it is not worth saving. There are no degrees of equality.

Yes, I'm sure several people in Ottawa love it.

The CBC cannot be sold for a more pratcical reason: nobody would buy it. I don't object to its existence, I do object to having everybody pay for what only a small portion are entertained by. Nobody is watching. Turn it over to those genuinely excited by The Road to Avonlea and they can run it as they please and for whatever cost and revenue they can generate.

that is an extraordinary and unsustainable difference unless you are living in your parents basement.It is also extremely unusual to be able to save lots of money when renting, assuming that the rental and purchase markets are normal. Enjoy it while it lasts.

no doubt. I am simply saying that buying a house is not the same as any other investment for at least two very significant reaons: leverage and the absolute necessity of having shelter

are you comparing these to the entertainment provided by the CBC or.....?better comparators: magazines, hobbies, concerts, internet porn, CDs, sports events.... if the govt must be obliged to fund one source of entertainment, why not all?

Nonsense, that is an old canard that has no base in reality any more. Nearly all 'remote' communities are well served by amenities like broadband Internet and satellite radio, which carries PBS, BBC World Service and yes, CBC.

It would mnean nothing substantive fiancially would change, since a provincial radio/TV network in Quebec would cost a few hundred million to operate and the money would come from Ottawa anyway.Of course. Anything else would be racist and fuelled by Anglo hatred of all things French.......... Did I play that card too early???

Ah, no. That overlooks the most compelling reason to invest in real esate for the average person: they need a place to live. There is no compelling or universal need for anybody to buy stocks or bonds or commodities or bury your pennies in the garden. There is definitely a compelling need to have a roof over your head, a central reality overlooked in investment discussions. If that 'investment ' also increases your net worth, it is a bonus and not the original intent of the investment.

Fact: If Ontario was not getting screwed by being underrepresented in the Commons, this would be seen as the West whining again. Fact: our system of govt is based on representation by popualtion, with all constituencies in the Commons being more or less of the same size numerically. This has not been maintained as the population has shifted significantly in the last 150 years. Time to fix it, although this repair is far from perfect.

Not really. If you rent, you are paying for all those things too, contained in the rental amount.The landlord does not donate any of them. Real estate is somewhat unique in that it is about the only heavily leveraged investment available to the middle class everyman. With just a few thousand bucks you can control an investment worth hundreds of thousands.