cybercoma Posted October 21, 2008 Report Posted October 21, 2008 (edited) If anything, the Liberals have lost the most ground. Harper has not achieved a Mulroney Breakthrough, thus no Majority unlike Mulroneys two back to back Majorities.It's even more difficult for Harper to achieve Mulroney's numbers, especially in Quebec. The party fractured after Mulroney and one half, the Bloc Quebecois, are still around and have control of Quebec. Without the BQ screwing up the numbers in the house, Harper would likely get his majority. Ifs and could have beens are besides the point though.And the NDP have managed to resurect themselves from the 1990s purgatory, to climb back up close to their 1988 highwater mark.That's very true, but the NDP aren't nearly as successful as other socialist/labour parties around the world. This is a direct result of their unwillingness to move their message closer to the center. When other social parties around the world moved their messages closer to the center, they successfully formed government. If Jack Layton ever wants to be Prime Minister, as unlikely as that will be given the public's opinion of him after this many years, the NDP needs to adjust their message.All parties messages change throughout time. The Liberal Messages changes by the hour.Dion, pitches Green SHift over summer. Dion Green Shift is Campaign Plank, basis of which is used to fund all programs. Dion says to media Green Shift is NOT central part of his campaign. (very strange) Says media said it was. Dion Defends Greenshift in Debates, and promotes it. (Back on the table) Liberal Party to Ditch Dion and Greenshift. End of days.... Coming soon That adjusting of the message based on polling numbers is what gave Chretien years of success. Adjusting the message is sine qua non for the Liberal Party's success. Dion's failure is borne of running a campaign contradictory to that. When the electorate found the green tax shift largely unfavourable, Dion should have dropped that idea like it was stolen, which it was. Unfortunately, he tried to run a campaign from ideology and Canadians showed him exactly what they think of that when they went to the polls. So, it's not the fact that the message changed so frequently that turned off the voters, it's that the message did not change that lead to Dion's demise. Edited October 21, 2008 by cybercoma Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted October 22, 2008 Report Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Repossessed homes (power of sale) don't stay on the market very long. Any equity built up in those properties provides room to adjust to a downward and lower than market value selling price. It is the original homeowner who loses equity, not the financial institutions holding the power of sale. We bought a condo repossessed by a bank for about $20K less than the original owner's purchase price. It had been on the market for two months. The bank wasn't looking to make a profit. All it wanted was to cover their basic costs associated with the property and unload it asap. I used to do reno's and it is not uncommon for people who are losing the home to quit looking after the home. There could be thousands of dollars in repairs and upgrades. The more that needs to be done the lower the value of the property. Add in the recession and the house could sit on the market for months or even more than a year. That means, any groundskeeping, property tax, water, hydro, heat is all coming out of the taxpayers pockets. I think you are thinking of homes that have had a downpayment plus 10-15 years of mortgage paid down on them. Those might not be too bad, but those are not the people in trouble. The ones in trouble are the ones who bought with no money down or as little as 5% within the last 5 years and now can't afford them anymore. IF someone just bbought a house 2 years ago they might have $15,000 of the mortgage paid down. I really foresee property values dropping much more than that if we go into a recession as half as bad as most are predicting. You might be right there. Perhaps the government's CMHC planners have addressed this potential scenario in any agreements concluded with the financial institutions. Who knows. I would think their policy is "You pay your money and you take your chances." Edited October 22, 2008 by Who's Doing What? Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
guyser Posted October 22, 2008 Report Posted October 22, 2008 . There could be thousands of dollars in repairs and upgrades. The more that needs to be done the lower the value of the property. Add in the recession and the house could sit on the market for months or even more than a year. That means, any groundskeeping, property tax, water, hydro, heat is all coming out of the taxpayers pockets. The govt doesnt own these homes, so why would the taxpayer be on the hook? The only loss would be the lack of tax liens, and we know theywill get their monies upon sale. Quote
capricorn Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 I think you are thinking of homes that have had a downpayment plus 10-15 years of mortgage paid down on them. Those might not be too bad, but those are not the people in trouble. The ones in trouble are the ones who bought with no money down or as little as 5% within the last 5 years and now can't afford them anymore. Yup. That makes sense to me. Guess in our case, the previous homeowner was the big loser. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 The ones in trouble are the ones who bought with no money down or as little as 5% within the last 5 years and now can't afford them anymore./quote] You can't buy a house in Canada with no money down and so far interest rates haven't gone up so if they could afford it 5 years ago they should still be able to now. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
William Ashley Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) err.... Your opinions don't best serve me, so that's strike one.Secondly, you mentioned that you are starting a political party... hence, you ARE partisan. Strike two... How am I failing to serve you with sharing my opinion? What exactly do you beleive tax payer dollars should go to pay, you think taking on more debt load to inflate the private banks is the right thing when Canada has it's own bank, the bank of Canada. http://www.bank-banque-canada.ca/en/about/are.html learn something about it. Why pay interest to anyone but ourself? Why not you know save money, rather than flushing it all down the drain, giving it to private banks who don't serve anyone but their own and stake holder interests in most cases, as it is a corporation. The higher money rests in society the more people it benifits, that is why we need not pump our banks up. We should instead let them merge to gain international presence, and offer public banking for those not interested in investment banking. Feel open to PM me with issue you feel are important, or if you would like to explain to me the error of my ways feel open to send me an email [email protected] I really do strive to serve everyones interests. Eg. I take peoples input, note in regard to other recent posts of mine, this is not the limit of what I think a MP should do, I think that an MP should also deliver and read messages and petititions to the commons, or atleast distribute them in commons if there is insufficient time to read them to the public and speaker, that is offer the text to the speaker, and cabinet or privy council. Of course they may prioritize petititions etc.. on a basis of reference for a specific issue that is of current note, or as a resource to royal commisions or councils, or inquiriers or parlimentary committees and hearings etc.. but the point is to make available the public communique. I do wish to hear from you should you feel you have important information for me that is vital to my wellbeing and our common good. ------ As for being partisan because I am starting a political party, I really shouldn't insult you. I am not partisan until I have a political party that is representative of other members of the party while contradicting my own beliefs. I do not have a registered party nor do any other members disagree with my views at this stage of the game. Thus I have not had to forfit my opinion for a party. Thus I am not partisan, I am speaking my own opinion which is non partisan. Also as an individual I am not speaking on behalf of the party, I am sharing my opinion - once again non partisan. You must understand what partisan means. I am not advocating for anything but my opinion. There is a clear line between personal opinion and partisan statements. Partisan means: Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics Note that the party, group, is not applicable to "EVERYONE" because that is inane, there needs to be a segment of the whole for it to be a group. As for cause, I'm not advocating any one cause, I have a variety of beleifs, and have no agenda to bring into force by militant means at this stage of my life. Edited October 23, 2008 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 There is no truth to that. ------- ??? Dion was involved with the sovereignty movement, first as a teenager attending a Jesuit college in Quebec City,[7], and later as a university student campaigning for Parti Québécois candidate Louise Beaudoin in the 1976 election.[8] Mr. Dion described his experience as follows: Because the party was there... I wanted to challenge my dad... the way to become an adult sometimes is to say the contrary to your father. Each evening, I would try out a new argument I had heard on the separatist network and my father was demolishing it... My father very quietly and very respectfully was refuting me, without insulting me.[7] Dion has said that his involvement as "an activist for the separatist cause" ended during a five-hour, rum-and-Coke fuelled discussion with a federalist household while he was going door-to-door for the PQ, but he did not openly commit to federalism until much later. ----------------- Are you saying these statements are false? Duceppe studied political science at the Université de Montréal but did not complete his program of study. While attending Université de Montréal, he became the general manager of the school's newspaper, Quartier Latin . Duceppe later earned a baccalaureate of collegiate studies from the Collège Mont-Saint-Louis. In his youth, he advocated communism, and held membership in the Workers' Communist Party of Canada. Duceppe later claimed that his three-year membership in the W.C.P. (M.L.) was a mistake brought on by a search for absolute answers. [2] However, during this period – which lasted well into his thirties -- he subscribed to militant Maoist ideology and was fired from his job as a hospital orderly for belligerent activities.[3] Duceppe even went so far as to intentionally spoil his 1980 sovereignty-association referendum ballot arguing that Québécois should instead focus their efforts on staying united to fight their common capitalist enemy.[3] Before becoming a member of the federal parliament of Canada, Duceppe worked as a hospital orderly and later became a trade union negotiator. In 1968 he became vice-president of the Union générale des étudiants du Québec (General Union of Quebec Students) and in 1970 manager of the Université de Montréal student paper Quartier latin. In 1972 he launched his career in community and union settings, as moderator for the citizen's committee of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, then in 1977 as a representative for the Royal Victoria Hospital employees. In 1981 he acceded to the position of union organizer for the CSN (Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux or, in english, CNTU - Confederation of National Trade Unions), where he became a negotiator in 1986. ----------------------- Are these statements false? --- If you find fault in my statements then you should refute these statements above. I do not intend to give false information to decieve or manipulate. Quote I was here.
William Ashley Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) The govt doesnt own these homes, so why would the taxpayer be on the hook? The only loss would be the lack of tax liens, and we know theywill get their monies upon sale. Hold on and why again is it bad for banks not to have money but ok for governments not to have money? Why cause we can borrow from the banks... doesn't this seem sort of cyclic? We'll buy this stuff off you, but we'll need the money back next year, ok. What intrest rate do you offer? banks reply.. whatever you set the prime at + x% for our profit. We own all the land anyway,, why do we need to buy mortages.. if they fail to pay their taxes we get them anyway.. it is profit for us no mater what.. why pay ourselves.. it is insane. The government weakened its economic position to the banks by buying them. Only good for them, not us. Edited October 23, 2008 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
fairvotecanada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 How about:The Reason Harper Lost His (Only?) Chance Of Getting A Majority? or The Reason Haprer Could Not Keep Operating As A Minority (Which He Now Has To Anyway)? Mr Con-dictator could not get his way; think he will this time? Quote http://thebenefactory.ca No Good Deed Goes Unpunished! ___________ Justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. It is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together." -Daniel Webster
guyser Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Hold on and why again.... Why cause we can .... We'll buy this stuff off you, but we'll need the money back next year, ok. .... The government weakened its economic position to the banks by buying them. Only good for them, not us. Try it in english and maybe I can answer you. Quote
Who's Doing What? Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 The govt doesnt own these homes, so why would the taxpayer be on the hook? The only loss would be the lack of tax liens, and we know theywill get their monies upon sale. Did the govt. not just purchase a bunch of mortgages? When you default on a mortgage the mortgage holder ends up with the house. Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
Who's Doing What? Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 You can't buy a house in Canada with no money down and so far interest rates haven't gone up so if they could afford it 5 years ago they should still be able to now. So the no money down signs I saw around town were false advertizing? How are they going to afford it with no job? Recession, remember? Quote Harper differed with his party on some key policy issues; in 1995, for example, he was one of only two Reform MPs to vote in favour of federal legislation requiring owners to register their guns. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/election/bio/harper.html "You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, January 22, 2001)
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 So the no money down signs I saw around town were false advertizing? 100% false. I personally I really find the claim you saw them (in canada) suspect. How are they going to afford it with no job? Whether it was 5, 10 or 20% down having no job will hurt. So they should sell before they are forced out. and they won't lose their equity. Recession, remember? The one we aren't in? How can I forget. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Did the govt. not just purchase a bunch of mortgages? insured mortages. When you default on a mortgage the mortgage holder ends up with the house. And? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
guyser Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 And? ..and apparently the govt will own them? No ,whos doing what, the bank will hire a company to look after them , auction them off, sell them thru an agent, get out of them as fast as possible, but the govt will not pay a dime for the upkeep etc. Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Mr. Harper won because he was heads and shoulders above the rest of the field. Could you picture Mr. Dion representing Canada at a summit? He wouldn't even be able to follow the conversation in any language. "Today?, 2 weeks ago?, 6 months ago?, 2 years ago?, 30-50 plan?" No thanks. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
guyser Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Mr. Harper won because he was heads and shoulders above the rest of the field. Yes he was, so good in fact he got a majority gover....oh wait..... Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Yes he was, so good in fact he got a majority gover....oh wait..... The Canadian people across the country gave him a majority mandate, except for Quebec. We've been through this. Quebec was the only reason for not getting a majority. This is a fact and cannot be argued. Doing so just lets your partisanship show and lets everyone know that you are disagreeing just because you don't like the CPC. No other reason as it is a fact. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
Smallc Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 The Canadian people across the country gave him a majority mandate, except for Quebec. We've been through this. Quebec was the only reason for not getting a majority. This is a fact and cannot be argued. Doing so just lets your partisanship show and lets everyone know that you are disagreeing just because you don't like the CPC. No other reason as it is a fact. So...if it weren't for a province with 1/4 of the population... Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) So...if it weren't for a province with 1/4 of the population... Spin it anyway you want. If the CPC had gotten the breakthrough like they did in Ontario they would have a solid majority. EDIT - I cannot for the life of me understand how people are disagreeing with me on this. They won seats all across Canada. No other Party did that. Edited October 23, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 The Canadian people across the country gave him a majority mandate, except for Quebec. We've been through this. Quebec was the only reason for not getting a majority. This is a fact and cannot be argued. Doing so just lets your partisanship show and lets everyone know that you are disagreeing just because you don't like the CPC. No other reason as it is a fact. Y We've been though this..you're factually challenged....remember Nova Scotia? Ontario? PEI? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Mr.Canada Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) YWe've been though this..you're factually challenged....remember Nova Scotia? Ontario? PEI? Alright M.Dancer Im in a fighting mood. What about these provinces? All I'm saying is that if they had won the same % of seats in Quebec that they did in Ontario, they would have a majority. How can you argue this? Only three times since 1921 has a gov't won 50% of the popular vote so don't use that as an argument plz. Edited October 23, 2008 by Mr.Canada Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
guyser Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 All I'm saying is that if they had won the same % of seats in Quebec that they did in Ontario, they would have a majority. How can you argue this? One cannot argue fantasy. And therein lies your problem. They didnt win the same %, ergo they didnt get a majority. How hard is that to understand? Keep on clicking those heels Dorothy..... Quote
Smallc Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) EDIT - I cannot for the life of me understand how people are disagreeing with me on this. They won seats all across Canada. No other Party did that. Both other parties did that, they just didn't win as many. Edited October 23, 2008 by Smallc Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 23, 2008 Report Posted October 23, 2008 Alright M.Dancer Im in a fighting mood.What about these provinces? All I'm saying is that if they had won the same % of seats in Quebec that they did in Ontario, How can you argue this? Because it's irrelevant. . Had they got the same % of seats in ontario as they did in alberta, they would have a majority. ...BC and NS......BC and NFLD? In a nutshell, it's a stupid paradigm. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.