Be optimistic about 2009: Harper

[Progressive Tory]

I agree with the comment that whenever anyone criticizes Harper, it immediately becomes Liberal bias. Stephen Harper is currently under attack by many within his own Party, and the calls for his resignation are becoming louder all the time. The past election was his best chance at winning a Minority. He'd reduced Mr. Dion's credibility, instilled fear over the boogey-man Carbon Tax and presented himself as a strong leader, but his only real accomplishment was to encourage voters to stay home.

He can't get the job done and until the Conservatives replace him with someone like Jim Prentice, their dreams of running the country will remain just that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

In order for that to happen the Conservatives will lose an election. I don't think that this is impossible, just unlikely anytime soon.

[fellowtraveller]

You are incorrect.

By November 27 GM had not approached the government to discuss any need for a bail-out. Flaherty was confident on his update that Canada was not going to be affected by the downturn. If there had been any government speculation that GM would be receiving a hand out, I'm sure it would have been included in his report.

While there was lots of media speculation that GM Canada would need a hand out, it is still factually incorrect. GMAC requires the bail-out for getting caught dealing with below prime mortgages. GMC is in a stable position building and selling vehicles as usual.

More errant nonsense.

GMAC follows exactly the same rules as every other mortgage lender in Canada. They are bound by the Bank Act and CMHC requirements, which apply equally to every lender.

[charter.rights]

More errant nonsense.

GMAC follows exactly the same rules as every other mortgage lender in Canada. They are bound by the Bank Act and CMHC requirements, which apply equally to every lender.

However, they are not afforded the protection that banks are. They are not banks and therefore not protected against their foolish investment schemes. As well, they were heavily involved in the Fanny May Freddie Mack below prime lending schemes in the US and are at the brink of bankruptcy. There is no money in the pot for GMAC, so they must turn to their major shareholder - GM - to bail them out at GM's risk....but wait....we are on the hook for that because we bailed out GM and GM wasn't even in trouble....

[fellowtraveller]

However, they are not afforded the protection that banks are

You have to give this line up, because again you are wrong.

All residential mortgage lenders in Canada - there are at least 65 including GMAC and the banks- operate under the same rules.

On their own, they can lend only 80% of the appraised value or sale price(whichever is less) of the home. Period. No exceptions.

CMHC then insures and allows the lending of up to a further 15%. The cost of that insurance is borne entirely by the homeowner.

The banks and GMAC have the same 'protection', which is basically none beyond the insured amount.

[Mr.Canada]

Before the loans were announced the Secular Socialists were complaining there was no bailout. Now that there is a bailout in place they complain about that too. Talk about flip flopping. LOL.

[madmax]

Here are some of the real drawbacks to the bailout.

1) These are loans without security

2) The money is going to the corporations, not the workers

3) The tax payer is being fleeced without recourse or public debate

4) There is no guarantee that it will work, the companies may yet fail

5) Jobs will still be lost no matter what else happens

6) The tax base will be compromised anyway

7) This opens the door to all sorts of bailouts when massive numbers of employees MAY be adversely affected

The opportunity for Iggy is to layout before Canadians the cost to the tax payer, the risks to the taxpayer and the lack of any sort of plan to support the citizens that will certainly face job losses.

Excellent Points.

I believe that the NDP and Jack Layton share those concerns, same for their Provincial counterparts.

Governments are good at handing out money if it increases their profile or popularity, but the devil is in the details.

I haven't seen the same level of concern from Harper or Iggy, but we haven't seen the final proposal either.

But your entire post, reflects my thoughts and similar concerns. We could easily be sent down the garden path.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We are constantly lead down that path by politicians. It is one of the reasons I favour a direct democracy.

[jdobbin]

It is one of the reasons I favour a direct democracy.

Maybe one day we can vote on everything, every day with a remote control.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We could now by cell phone or internet.

[Smallc]

We could now by cell phone or internet.

So, you're going to take the time to sit down and read every word of every bill, or at least enough of it have a good understanding?

[Alta4ever]

So, you're going to take the time to sit down and read every word of every bill, or at least enough of it have a good understanding?

The important ones the directly effect me, yes I would sit down read them and digest them. Everyone in the country should read the budget so they know what the government is doing, instead of relying on unrealiable media to to give them tid bits about what they do or do not agree with or what is in line with their current pet causes.

Most bills are not that hard to read or understand. The one on senate reform was a wopping 2 paragraphs but then again liberals as demonstrated by the liberal dominated senate have trouble reading and digesting such bills, they never did approve it after many many months of sitting in that house.

[Smallc]

.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

We could now by cell phone or internet.

Exactly. We can vote on who to chose for every piece of legislation, on jury trials and everyday decisions numerous times a day. What could be more democratic?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Anybody ever count how much legislation these clowns actually vote on?