Are CPP funds at risk?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Why lend the banks a dime when they are still posting record profits? Why buy the mortgages simply because they are federally insured? Can anyone see that the governments want to spend tax dollars? Can anybody see that actions undertaken by our government leave us responsible for the results?

It is time to begin to understand that the transfer of wealth that occurs through the governments revenue streams benefit the most affluent citizens of the nation. It is time to understand that the government has and does exceed its authority on a regular basis. It is time to understand that the debt incurred by governments represent a very real cost to each and every citizen.

[Moonbox]

...so the Canadian government is borrowing $25 billion dollars to buy up mortgages held by the banks...and the government is doing so because the Canadian banks are the most solid banks in the world!

Why not just lend the banks 25 billion dollars at cost? They are certainly good for it arn't they? Whats the need for the transaction of mortgages for money?

I wrote a post explaining the 25 billion dollar deal. You don't have a clue how it works and I don't expect you to, but don't go around pulling your hair out at something you don't even begin to understand.

It's not a bailout in any way, shape or form. I cannot even stress how much it is not a bailout.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin you argue like a child. You contradict yourself so much it's not even funny. You complain and complain about the financial crisis and you whine about how Harper is somehow magically the cause of it, yet Canadian federal monetary policy has PROVEN itself the best in the world. Given that the natural caution of the Canadian Banks has almost entirely sheltered us from a collapse of banking systems seen almost EVERYWHERE else in the world, I find it hilarious that now you're trying to argue against their tightening up of lending guidelines.

And you seem to personalize. Why do it?

When did I argue against lending guidelines?

You're so completely and totally ignorant of both how the economy works and how foolish you make yourself look with arguments that contradict each other, I don't even know what to say to you anymore.

There are some really blind posters out there but at least you can understand how and why they feel the way they do. I understand a low wage union member voting NDP because it's in their best interest to. I understand Greenthumb's hate for the Tories given his position on legalizing drugs. You on the other hand, I can't even begin to understand.

Please show me where I am contradicting myself. Where have I said that lending guidelines should be loosened? Really.

You criticize Harper on spending yet the Martin Liberals spent 95% as much AND the Dion Liberals are proposing to increase spending by a GREAT DEAL MORE.

The Tories promised to cut their spending. They promise it every budget. I think you should direct your anger at them, not me. You have tried to justify and say it is transfer payments. Well, Harper was against increasing those in 2006 as well.

You criticize Harper for the financial crisis yet you cannot come up with a SINGLE specific criticism of what he's done to make it worse and you ignore the fact that we're better off right now than everyone else. You then go ahead and criticize the banks for exhibiting the natural caution that has SAVED them from a banking collapse!

What exactly did I say about the banks?

Plugging your ears, closing your eyes and humming loudly does NOT make you right! Try for a change to allow what some of us are writing to actually sink in!

Until you can specifically point out what I said on guidelines and what I said on banks, I have to assume that you are just personalizing for no reason.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Considering I am about 15 years younger than the youngest baby-boomer, I am not really expecting CPP to come through for me. Too bad I have to pay it anyway, but I realize I had better make my own plans.

[jdobbin]

I just want to add Jdobbin that I'm not arguing that the markets don't blow themselves up once or twice a decade, but some of your points sometimes are just way out there.

I have no idea what you are arguing. All I said here was that CPP has a small percentage in the market. They will be hurt but they are also in the market for a long term.

I responded to someone who argues against the CPP who said bureaucrats can't pick winners and losers. I've pointed out many times in this forum that CPP is about one of the only pension systems that is funded when compared to the rest of industrialized world.

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that I don't support banking guidelines or for the rest of your dissertation.

In fact, your entire response to me in this thread makes no sense since it has nothing to do with what I wrote. If you have something to say about CPP or the fact that the market is determined to head down despite everything that happened last week, please enlighten.

I have no blamed Harper for the market going down unlike Tory supporters here who seem to think that Dion is completely responsible for the market going down in Canada. The market is going down in Canada almost completely because of what is happening in the world.

The fact that I disagree with Harper spending while you defend it makes me wonder. I disagreed with Liberal overspending as well but you say the difference is that Harper had to break his promise over and over again for a variety of reasons. I don't really care what the reasons are. Overspending when the economy was cooking along in 2006 was not the brightest idea. If spending had been better controlled, I'd have preferred a greater tax cut.

You can disagree with Dion's plan and say it is more expensive. That's fine. But don't pretend that Harper's plan is not as costly. Just because he announced the bulk of it before the election doesn't mean it doesn't count.

[jdobbin]

Considering I am about 15 years younger than the youngest baby-boomer, I am not really expecting CPP to come through for me. Too bad I have to pay it anyway, but I realize I had better make my own plans.

Do you not plan to live another 75 years? That is how long term the CPP is funded through deductions to handle baby boomers and the generation after.

[Moonbox]

And you seem to personalize. Why do it?

I personalize how silly you sound. Regardless of what Harper does, it's automatically the wrong thing to do. It's wrong for Harper to increase spending but you've never a critical word for Dion's planned spending increases which dwarf Harper's. Your response to this argument has consistently been the technicality that Harper went over-budget. That's fine, point acknowledged, but the alternatives are promising bigger spending increases, so unless you're abstaining from voting, you're contradicting yourself.

When did I argue against lending guidelines?

You said:

Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners.

You are implying that the banks are doing the wrong things by protecting themselves. Right here is a perfect example of you either not having any clue what you're talking about or you contradicting yourself. I would assume you are against a Canadian bank collapse right? So then why are you criticizing them for making sure they're not losing money on mortgages like they have been since the spring??? I'll cite it if you absolutely need me to. I won't be surprised either because that's generally your defence mechanism when your argument has been stumped.

The Tories promised to cut their spending. They promise it every budget. I think you should direct your anger at them, not me. You have tried to justify and say it is transfer payments. Well, Harper was against increasing those in 2006 as well.

I've already agreed with you that I'd prefer Harper tightened the wallet. Your contradiction here is that you're completely against Harper spending but you're generally supportive of Dion who is promising spending way above and beyond Harper's. What this looks like is a huge double standard.

What exactly did I say about the banks?

Until you can specifically point out what I said on guidelines and what I said on banks, I have to assume that you are just personalizing for no reason.

Please see above. I quoted you from this very thread. I am not personalizing out of dislike for you or anything silly like that. I'm personalizing your arguments because I'd like to present them to you how they appear to everyone else. Your double standards and loopy logic are totally confounding.

If you'll stop dodging the arguments I present to you I'll stop hounding you.

There are three things I'd like you to acknowledge or at least respond to:

1) How can you argue against Harper's spending when the other candidates are promising spending BEYOND his? Regardless of his not following his own budgets, how does electing a Prime Minister promising even HIGHER spending present a better alternative??

2) The Green Shift was confirmed by a citation YOU provided from the CTF to be a tax grab equalization formula. It said the Green Shift was NOT revenue neutral for the average family and business. It confirmed that the average family and business would be out a good deal of money and that this would NOT be good for the economy. You've argued extensively against GST cuts and I agree with you that Income Tax cuts are better. With your criticism of this, however, how do you support a Liberal government who is offering INCREASED taxes to everyone but the very poor and NO alternative tax relief to anyone else??????

3) What has Harper done to endanger the Canadian economy at large? You're a huge Harpernomic critic, so what is it that he's doing to hurt us?

[jdobbin]

I personalize how silly you sound. Regardless of what Harper does, it's automatically the wrong thing to do. It's wrong for Harper to increase spending but you've never a critical word for Dion's planned spending increases which dwarf Harper's.

You do personalize and do insult. I don't know why you do it. I have seen quite a few people get banned because they can't control the urge to do so.

I'm afraid you are wrong again. I have been critical of Dion's spending announcements.

Your response to this argument has consistently been the technicality that Harper went over-budget. That's fine, point acknowledged, but the alternatives are promising bigger spending increases, so unless you're abstaining from voting,

It is not a technicality that he went over his promise on budgets. It is a fact.

you're contradicting yourself.

You said:

You are implying that the banks are doing the wrong things by protecting themselves. Right here is a perfect example of you either not having any clue what you're talking about or you contradicting yourself.

You could not be more wrong. I was arguing against dismantling the CPP in favour of private pensions. August and I have had this argument before.

I would assume you are against a Canadian bank collapse right? So then why are you criticizing them for making sure they're not losing money on mortgages like they have been since the spring??? I'll cite it if you absolutely need me to. I won't be surprised either because that's generally your defence mechanism when your argument has been stumped.

You misunderstood the first part of the argument I was having about dismantling CPP. I was arguing that privatizing CPP in favour of the market because it picks better winners is putting a lot of faith in the market. By way of example, I said the market was hoarding cash to protect itself even though the liquidity was hurting them all. The market was paralyzed.

I've already agreed with you that I'd prefer Harper tightened the wallet. Your contradiction here is that you're completely against Harper spending but you're generally supportive of Dion who is promising spending way above and beyond Harper's. What this looks like is a huge double standard.

You should ask some of your Tory friends on the forum how I have opposed a lot of Dion's spending announcements. Please do. I have been arguing for tax cuts and spending reductions since joining this forum.

Please see above. I quoted you from this very thread. I am not personalizing out of dislike for you or anything silly like that. I'm personalizing your arguments because I'd like to present them to you how they appear to everyone else. Your double standards and loopy logic are totally confounding.

I just showed you that I was supporting the CPP over privatization. I didn't question bank lending practices or rules on lending. I just said that they don't always pick winners better than public sector organizations such as the CPP.

If you'll stop dodging the arguments I present to you I'll stop hounding you.

If you keep downplaying the broke Harper promise on spending with "but the Liberals", I will stop pointing it out to you.

There are three things I'd like you to acknowledge or at least respond to:

1) How can you argue against Harper's spending when the other candidates are promising spending BEYOND his? Regardless of his not following his own budgets, how does electing a Prime Minister promising even HIGHER spending present a better alternative??

I think I have pointed out that have criticized Dion spending announcements or support for expensive programs such as ethanol.

I have also pointed out that I also count all the spending Harper made before the election, some of which was silly beyond belief.

2) The Green Shift was confirmed by a citation YOU provided from the CTF to be a tax grab equalization formula. It said the Green Shift was NOT revenue neutral for the average family and business. It confirmed that the average family and business would be out a good deal of money and that this would NOT be good for the economy. You've argued extensively against GST cuts and I agree with you that Income Tax cuts are better. With your criticism of this, however, how do you support a Liberal government who is offering INCREASED taxes to everyone but the very poor and NO alternative tax relief to anyone else??????

The revenue neutral means the government won't be taking in more than in it was previously.

The Harper plan on cap and trade according to many who have looked at it is just as expensive in the end but there are no corresponding tax cuts.

3) What has Harper done to endanger the Canadian economy at large? You're a huge Harpernomic critic, so what is it that he's doing to hurt us?

And I always refer to his spending with no meaningful cuts. I also point out to his reduction of the GST over meaningful cuts in income taxes.

[Moonbox]

You do personalize and do insult. I don't know why you do it. I have seen quite a few people get banned because they can't control the urge to do so.

You're a little sensitive I think.

I'm afraid you are wrong again. I have been critical of Dion's spending announcements.

I've really not seen this.

It is not a technicality that he went over his promise on budgets. It is a fact.

It's a fact you're right. It's also a technicality. When you're being highly critical of Harper's spending budget it's almost implied that there's a better alternative. If you're not arguing there's an alternative, then you're really just complaining. When it's suggested that Dion would be spending even more you automatically revert to the fact/technicality that Harper went over his own budget.

You could not be more wrong. I was arguing against dismantling the CPP in favour of private pensions. August and I have had this argument before.

You misunderstood the first part of the argument I was having about dismantling CPP. I was arguing that privatizing CPP in favour of the market because it picks better winners is putting a lot of faith in the market. By way of example, I said the market was hoarding cash to protect itself even though the liquidity was hurting them all. The market was paralyzed.

It wasn't a good example.

You said:

"Given that the market's solution in the last weeks was to stop lending and let the whole economy crash, you place a lot of faith in the market to pick winners."

Your statement's implication was that the banks were somehow making a bad decision and were screwing the rest of the economy over. You tried to argue the danger of free market economics with an example of the free market acting responsibly and cautiously. Again, it was either a contradiction or an example of you not understanding what you were talking about.

You should ask some of your Tory friends on the forum how I have opposed a lot of Dion's spending announcements. Please do. I have been arguing for tax cuts and spending reductions since joining this forum.

I've not seen a single example of this. Please remember politics are all about comparisons. It's one alternative over another. Why are you going on and on about Harper's spending when Dion's promised worse? Why would you complain about his tax cuts when Dion will end up taxing the average Canadian more in the end? It doesn't make sense.

If you keep downplaying the broke Harper promise on spending with "but the Liberals", I will stop pointing it out to you.

Political discussion is pointless without side by side comparisons. That's what it's all about. You don't look at one politician in a vacuum. "But the Liberals" is a rational response. Because I can't argue that Harper hasn't been over budget, when you bring this up as a reason he should not be re-elected you have to compare the alternative.

The revenue neutral means the government won't be taking in more than in it was previously.

I know what it means. Dion has failed to mention that it is NOT revenue neutral for the vast majority of Canadian families or businesses. It means more taxes for the people who are actually paying decent taxes and it means less taxes for the people who are hardly paying any taxes already. This is not good for the economy in any way shape or form.

The Harper plan on cap and trade according to many who have looked at it is just as expensive in the end but there are no corresponding tax cuts.

and this is pretty much a moot point considering the priority Harper has placed on the environment. His cap and trade plan will likely never be implemented. You and I both know this. Dion is the only person standing to be elected her who's going to increase taxes on productive members of the country.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

Excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hat:

Governments are buying up bank assets all over the world. In particular, the mortgages that banks are holding. For the toaster crowd, this means the One World Government will own your property. The Group of 7 will have complete control of nearly all the property in the world. Welcome to the New World Order.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Governments are buying mortgages, that is a fact. Tax payers are being held to ransom with ever growing debt, and that debt is to the banks! It is far worst than you folks suspect. The banks are dumping bad loans and having the governments buy them up. Witness the first glimpse at corporate governance.

[whowhere]

Is it me, or is there something wrong with a political structure that enables a minority conservative government to unilaterally give away 25 billion dollars of taxpayer money to banks and for what? Because they did not exercise prudence and integrity in their lending practices. They lent money to those who shouldn't have got it in the first place and now taxpayers are suppose to foot the bill.

Let's put the figure into perspective. The US is ten times the size, so this bailout would equate to a 250 Billion dollar bailout. In order for their 750 Billion dollar bailout to pass it had to first go through the Senate, then voted on. It then had to go through Congress, then voted on. Once through the house it had to get the President Signature.

This 25 Billion / 34 million equates to $735 dollars per person in Canada!!! Why and how is it that a minority government in Canada is able to unilaterally give 25 Billion dollars of taxpayer/Canada money to Banks. Where's the political checks here?

The fact the conservatives are able to wield such power over Canada with a minority government shows Canada is just a jerkoff/BS political structure. Corrupt to the Core.

[Riverwind]

Is it me, or is there something wrong with a political structure that enables a minority conservative government to unilaterally give away 25 billion dollars of taxpayer money to banks and for what? Because they did not exercise prudence and integrity in their lending practices. They lent money to those who shouldn't have got it in the first place and now taxpayers are suppose to foot the bill.

I would put the blame on the media and the opposition for criticizing the conservatives "do nothing" approach. They picked this action because they believed it would 1) help increase liquidity and 2) potentially net the tax payers a profit when the loans are re-sold in less troubled times.

I too am not convinced it was economically necessary but the yahoos running the opposition parties and the people who listen to them made it politically necessary. Anyone who has a problem with this bail out should console themselves that anyone done by a Liberal gov't would likely be much much worse.

[Jobu]

Is it me, or is there something wrong with a political structure that enables a minority conservative government to unilaterally give away 25 billion dollars of taxpayer money to banks and for what? Because they did not exercise prudence and integrity in their lending practices. They lent money to those who shouldn't have got it in the first place and now taxpayers are suppose to foot the bill.

Let's put the figure into perspective. The US is ten times the size, so this bailout would equate to a 250 Billion dollar bailout. In order for their 750 Billion dollar bailout to pass it had to first go through the Senate, then voted on. It then had to go through Congress, then voted on. Once through the house it had to get the President Signature.

This 25 Billion / 34 million equates to $735 dollars per person in Canada!!! Why and how is it that a minority government in Canada is able to unilaterally give 25 Billion dollars of taxpayer/Canada money to Banks. Where's the political checks here?

The fact the conservatives are able to wield such power over Canada with a minority government shows Canada is just a jerkoff/BS political structure. Corrupt to the Core.

Yep, someone else who lacks the intelligence or the will to understand.

By the way, no party is objecting to this action.

[jdobbin]

You're a little sensitive I think.

I've seen enough of the personalizing to know that it usually ends up in someone getting banned. Since I'm still here, you can assume that it is usually the other person.

I've really not seen this.

Well, then let me clear. I think Dion has promised too much in the election in terms of spending. I disagreed with at least 3/4s of it.

I disagree with tax credits for every little thing. The Liberals do it, the Tories do it. I hate it. Let's just stick to an income tax cut. The increase of an already ineffective child tax credit is politics over good policy.

I'm willing to compromise for the sake of a savings program though. RRSPs and TFSAs are that compromise. Tax credits for spending such as arts, sports and the like are an unnecessary complication.

I am absolutely against the ethanol program that all the parties support. Look it up. I don't think you will find anyone arguing more strongly against it in these forums.

I still support the Dion environmental program but think that it should have been introduced with income tax cuts that were twice as large as what was introduced. I think revenue neutral for the government was simply not good enough.

I am against income splitting. It is unfair to individuals.

Dion should have kept the spending announcements down and the tax decreases should have been the centerpiece to the platform.

Having said that, I think all the parties have made wildly inflated spending promises.

It's a fact you're right. It's also a technicality. When you're being highly critical of Harper's spending budget it's almost implied that there's a better alternative. If you're not arguing there's an alternative, then you're really just complaining. When it's suggested that Dion would be spending even more you automatically revert to the fact/technicality that Harper went over his own budget.

I want Harper to keep his promise on spending. What is so difficult about that? He had his way for the entire time in Parliament and could have kept a tighter rein on program spending.

To argue that the Liberals would spend more is not good enough. The record is clear in the last 15 years and that is that the Liberals will cut spending and cut deep when needed. That didn't happen under Mulroney and it hasn't happened under Harper.

responsibly and cautiously[/i]. Again, it was either a contradiction or an example of you not understanding what you were talking about.

I'm afraid you are wrong. You are coming to the wrong conclusions. The banks made the a decision that they thought would save them. In their view it was a good decision and given the instability of the market, a good one for their banks. The problem is that it let confidence in the market evaporate further.

The problem as you can see is that it is not an overall winning strategy. I understand why the banks did it but do you think the market picked the best way to get past this crisis?

August has long argued that the government workers don't know how to pick winners. He wants a private pension system and the end of the CPP. He says the CPP or any government operation does a poor job and can't pick winners better than the private sector. I tend to agree that the government should leave most mechanisms of the market to the market but complete faith in the principles of Friedman will not end the crisis. It is why Bush and others have turned to Keynes.

I've not seen a single example of this. Please remember politics are all about comparisons. It's one alternative over another. Why are you going on and on about Harper's spending when Dion's promised worse? Why would you complain about his tax cuts when Dion will end up taxing the average Canadian more in the end? It doesn't make sense.

You see...that is your partisan view of things. I don't believe Harper is spending less. He announced less but it is always been more that what he promised to spend annually. That has happened in every budget. You keep saying the Liberals would do worse as some sort of mantra. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals are the only party to have reduced spending in the last 15 years. That is their record.

Political discussion is pointless without side by side comparisons. That's what it's all about.

I have given you a comparison. In government Liberals cut spending. In power, the Tories have not.

You don't look at one politician in a vacuum. "But the Liberals" is a rational response. Because I can't argue that Harper hasn't been over budget, when you bring this up as a reason he should not be re-elected you have to compare the alternative.

The alternative is the record the Liberals have on spending.

I know what it means. Dion has failed to mention that it is NOT revenue neutral for the vast majority of Canadian families or businesses. It means more taxes for the people who are actually paying decent taxes and it means less taxes for the people who are hardly paying any taxes already. This is not good for the economy in any way shape or form.

and this is pretty much a moot point considering the priority Harper has placed on the environment. His cap and trade plan will likely never be implemented. You and I both know this. Dion is the only person standing to be elected her who's going to increase taxes on productive members of the country.

And the alternative that Harper proposes is the cap and trade that is just as costly with no major tax decreases. Your defence is that it won't be implemented. You are basically saying that Harper is being dishonest and you are okay with it.

Somehow is your mind Dion will do as he promises and Harper won't. How many other Harper promises will be broken?

Edited October 12, 2008 by jdobbin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

On Wednesday when Stephan and Jack visit the Governor General to declare a coalition, all the cards will not be put on the table. The only thing Canadians will know for sure is that Harper will no longer be the Prime Minister.

It will be at least a week before any politician aside from Harper makes any kind of public statement that would provide any insight to the new governments plan. You can expect an NDP platform of breaks for citizens tempered with a Liberal platform of breaks for business. In terms of foreign policies you can expect nothing changing for at least a year, but after that gloves will come off. Canada will take a protectionist stand and find itself at odds with the USA.

Canadians need this change to protect their jobs and families from world events. We will need to remake our economy from the ground up. Watch for internal consumption methods to bolster the economy. Watch Canada take a lead role in automated production facilities. Canadians will eventually become the designers and technicians of a new means of production.

Things are about to change if Harper losses this election, and that may well happen.

[Riverwind]

On Wednesday when Stephan and Jack visit the Governor General to declare a coalition, all the cards will not be put on the table. The only thing Canadians will know for sure is that Harper will no longer be the Prime Minister.

The country will go to hell in a handbasket if that happens. A liberal government would be tolerable - but a liberal-ndp coalition would piss away all of progress we have made building a strong economy that is well positioned to withstand the current crisis. Edited October 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[Jobu]

On Wednesday when Stephan and Jack visit the Governor General to declare a coalition, all the cards will not be put on the table. The only thing Canadians will know for sure is that Harper will no longer be the Prime Minister.

It will be at least a week before any politician aside from Harper makes any kind of public statement that would provide any insight to the new governments plan. You can expect an NDP platform of breaks for citizens tempered with a Liberal platform of breaks for business. In terms of foreign policies you can expect nothing changing for at least a year, but after that gloves will come off. Canada will take a protectionist stand and find itself at odds with the USA.

Canadians need this change to protect their jobs and families from world events. We will need to remake our economy from the ground up. Watch for internal consumption methods to bolster the economy. Watch Canada take a lead role in automated production facilities. Canadians will eventually become the designers and technicians of a new means of production.

Things are about to change if Harper losses this election, and that may well happen.

hehehe

I really hope people who post this sort of stuff are after a quick chuckle and don't believe it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Good catch!

Actually I hope for this to happen but don't expect it at all.

[Riverwind]

Actually I hope for this to happen but don't expect it at all.

Probably because a NDP coalition would completely alienate the moderate center that the Liberals need to win a majority.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I don't want a majority! Too much power for Ottawa to handle, their track record has displayed much agony to citizens.

[Moonbox]

I am absolutely against the ethanol program that all the parties support. Look it up. I don't think you will find anyone arguing more strongly against it in these forums.

Well there's one thing you and I agree on 100%

I still support the Dion environmental program but think that it should have been introduced with income tax cuts that were twice as large as what was introduced. I think revenue neutral for the government was simply not good enough.

I agree with that again. I don't mind the idea of a Green Shift. If everyone benefited equally from it I wouldn't complain about it. The Green Shift as it stands to me is a blatent equalization strategy pandering to the poor. I'm ALWAYS against that sort of thing.

I am against income splitting. It is unfair to individuals.

I agree again.

Dion should have kept the spending announcements down and the tax decreases should have been the centerpiece to the platform.

Having said that, I think all the parties have made wildly inflated spending promises.

I want Harper to keep his promise on spending. What is so difficult about that? He had his way for the entire time in Parliament and could have kept a tighter rein on program spending.

Harper ran a minority government where the Liberals were watching public opinion with their fingers on the election trigger. It's extremely difficult to push forward an economic platform when the majority of parliament is totally against you. With that said, our budget remained balanced and your claims have been wildly exaggerated.

To argue that the Liberals would spend more is not good enough. The record is clear in the last 15 years and that is that the Liberals will cut spending and cut deep when needed. That didn't happen under Mulroney and it hasn't happened under Harper.

The record of the Chretien Liberals isn't really good enough to prove your point either. The debt compared to GDP was highest under the Trudeau Liberals. Liberals are EVERY bit as guilty for our current debt load as Mulroney PC's are and just because they cleaned up the mess they began doesn't mean they deserve our admiration. We all know how they DID balance the budget too. It was by hoarding wealth in Ottawa and leaving the provinces broke.

The record I have to follow for Harper is that he lowered my taxes and he never ran a deficit. Dion is PROMISING higher taxes and higher spending. Regardless of whether or not Harper went over his own budgets, it's EXTREMELY loopy logic to claim that Dion is going to be spending less and lowering taxes when he is PROMISING to do the opposite.

The problem as you can see is that it is not an overall winning strategy. I understand why the banks did it but do you think the market picked the best way to get past this crisis?

Absolutely. The very last thing we need right now is to have the banks get themselves in trouble. We are better off than the rest of the world right now because they have relatively speaking kept themselves out of the mess.

August has long argued that the government workers don't know how to pick winners. He wants a private pension system and the end of the CPP. He says the CPP or any government operation does a poor job and can't pick winners better than the private sector. I tend to agree that the government should leave most mechanisms of the market to the market but complete faith in the principles of Friedman will not end the crisis. It is why Bush and others have turned to Keynes.

Some of the posters here have right wing views well beyond my own. I think CPP is necessary but only because the majority of Canadians are too stupid to save for themselves. They're stupid with their money and they will depend on the government in their old age to support them.

You keep saying the Liberals would do worse as some sort of mantra. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals are the only party to have reduced spending in the last 15 years. That is their record.

I have given you a comparison. In government Liberals cut spending. In power, the Tories have not.

The alternative is the record the Liberals have on spending.

What you've done is pick a favorable reference point. On this logic the Liberals should never have been elected in 1993 because of Trudeau spending. Balancing the budget during pretty much the most prosperous time in the economy for the last 40 years is not a remarkable accomplishment for Chretien especially considering how he did it. Brian Mulroney was a lousy PM but you can't compare his spending to Harper's for the same reason you can't compare Chretien's to Trudeau's. They weren't even in the same league.

And the alternative that Harper proposes is the cap and trade that is just as costly with no major tax decreases. Your defence is that it won't be implemented. You are basically saying that Harper is being dishonest and you are okay with it.

Harper is being about as dishonest with this as Dion is about not increasing taxes. There are glaring omissions in both. For Harper, he omits that he hasn't set really much of ANY priority or time table for his plan. For Dion, he omits that his Green Shift is an income equalization formula and business and average taxpapayers WILL be taxed more. You pick your poison, but one of these plans is the focus of an entire election platform and the other is a side note. Which one do you think is less likely to be turned into legislation???

Somehow is your mind Dion will do as he promises and Harper won't. How many other Harper promises will be broken?

This is one of those fuzzy contradictions that you confuse the issues with. I've acknowledged this with you on dozens of occassions that Harper has broken numerous election promises. I look at the campaign pragmatically, however, and see that despite Harper's falling short of election promises, what he has done and proposes to do are MUCH better than what Dion has PROMISED to do. Your rebuttal is then to say that perhaps Dion is a liar and the Liberals central focus in the campaign may end up as a broken promise as well?????

[whowhere]

Yep, someone else who lacks the intelligence or the will to understand.

By the way, no party is objecting to this action.

Yes, I understand, and it's not right taxpayers are footing the bill for reckless lending practices of Banks. Why should everyone subsidize houses for people who should have never gotten the loans in the first place. It is obvios you are affiliated with Real Estate in some form because you see no wrong in taking money out of Taxpayer pockets and giving them to banks.

[Jobu]

Yes, I understand, and it's not right taxpayers are footing the bill for reckless lending practices of Banks. Why should everyone subsidize houses for people who should have never gotten the loans in the first place. It is obvios you are affiliated with Real Estate in some form because you see no wrong in taking money out of Taxpayer pockets and giving them to banks.

I have nothing to do with real state.

Which taxpayers are footing the bill?

Why shouldn't these people have gotten mortgages? Is there some indication they are unwilling to pay? As far as I have heard, mortgage default rates are at historical lows.

[whowhere]

I have nothing to do with real state.

Which taxpayers are footing the bill?

Why shouldn't these people have gotten mortgages? Is there some indication they are unwilling to pay? As far as I have heard, mortgage default rates are at historical lows.

Are you for real?? Where is this 25 Billion coming from?? If it comes from the Government, taxpayers are liable and on the hook for it. You watch the news and the foreclosures happening in the the United States? Subprime is money lent to those who should have never got it in the first place. The subprime was based on loose lending practices. That 25 Billions represents Canada's subprime mess. The conservatives are trying to sweep the subprime loans under the rug so they can hide their George Bush style governing practices. The Canadian voter better wake up to the Danger a Conservative Government is to Canada's solvency.