Canadian Political Polls

madmax · October 13, 2009

Did we miss this poll??? Or am I amiss this time in massive thread drift ? :blink:

CPC Majority in sight or still out of reach?

If an election were held tomorrow, the Conservatives would receive 39% of support among decided voters across the country, up two percentage points from a survey in late September. The Liberals are running at 29%, down one point, according to the Ipsos Reid poll, commissioned by Canwest News Service and Global National.
The NDP remains in third place nationally with 13%, down a point, followed by the Bloc Quebecois with 10%, up one point, and the Green party at 8%, down a point.

CPC 39% (up)

LPC 29% (down)

BQ 10%

NDP 13% (down)

jdobbin · October 13, 2009

Did we miss this poll??? Or am I amiss this time in massive thread drift ?

Probably missed because the National Post is hardly read by anyone and they published it on Monday?

No real change from the last Ipsos. It is a poll that puts the Liberals ahead of the Tories in Quebec and Tories ahead of the Liberals in Ontario.

punked · October 13, 2009

Your suggesting the government is qualified to set the price of a service without knowing the costs. Do you know how a credit card works? Do you know the volatility, the high risk margin involved in a credit card? Pay day loans are another beast entirely. The point is Punked; if you're a responsible consumer you don't carry a balance on your credit card. The interest rate is immaterial if you pay it off in 30 days. If you can't afford to pay it off that quickly, chances are you can't afford whatever it is you bought. Over 85% of people DON"T carry a balance on their credit cards and never pay any interest. A good portion of those who do carry a balance generally other credit issues also.
Our arguments are vastly different. You're attempting to alleviate personal responsibility for spending, and accepting that credit cards are an entitlement and therefore SHOULD be regulated. I'm suggesting that we are responsible for our own spending and that we don't need the government to save us from ourselves. The banks are not the problem, the people who misuse their credit cards, payday loans or depend on them for survival because they are living beyond their means are.

It is not the right of anyone to have a credit card, it's not free money, it's a convenience and a service and that comes at a cost.

NO I am suggesting the government has the right to regulate lending of institutions which make their loans from loans they have taken from the Canadian people. I suggest this becuase the law for it has been on the books for about 80 years or so it has never however been applied too credit cards. The government can and should do this on outrages credit card fees and interest which are that way for no other reason then they are not regulated.

Shady · October 13, 2009

Probably missed because the National Post is hardly read by anyone

Nonsense. Although it doesn't suprise me that you and your ilk aren't daily readers of the National Post.

madmax · October 13, 2009

Nonsense. Although it doesn't suprise me that you and your ilk aren't daily readers of the National Post.

I read the post and this too....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edit...ml?prmid=op_ed#

Canwest files for bankruptcy: another media meltdown
The reorganization of Canwest Global Communications shows once again that the problem of media companies is debt, not journalism.

THE bankruptcy reorganization of Canada's largest media company, announced Tuesday, is another sign that the debt-driven model of newspaper and TV chains no longer works.

The company is Canwest Global Communications, Winnipeg. It owns The Vancouver Sun and other big-city papers, as well as The National Post, the more conservative of Canada's two nationwide papers. Canwest owns Global Television and specialty TV stations. Some of these properties were included in yesterday's filing and some not.

Canwest's businesses were roped together by the late Israel Asper with debt that earlier this year was at a staggering $4 billion Canadian. It was too much, and in an environment of lowered advertising revenues, Canwest could not pay the interest on it.

A chain as big as Canwest Global Communications in a country as small as Canada is a monstrosity. It is too much power in one place.

A few years ago, views like ours were considered old-fashioned and impractical in the new world of media giantism. Now the giants fall.

Readers should keep a note of who is filing for bankruptcy reorganization and who isn't. Always, debt is at the center of it, and usually debt not for the purpose of journalism.

Edited October 13, 2009 by madmax

jdobbin · October 13, 2009

Nonsense. Although it doesn't suprise me that you and your ilk aren't daily readers of the National Post.

Well, let's see why I would make that remark: First, as as subscriber, they stopped delivery in Manitoba among a few provinces. Second, the paper is largely unavailable even in the boxes in Manitoba, third: they cut staff and found other writers leaving that many people did actually read, fourth, their readership went down nationally as they concentrated on the Toronto market and fifth, I found they were not updating their website very fast in comparison to other newspapers so that if I did want to stay in touch with them, they made no effort to stay in touch with me.

You and your ilk may try very hard to read the National Post but they have abandoned much of the country. And that isn't nonsense, that is the truth. I used to get four newspapers a day. Two of them gave up: The National Post and the Winnipeg Sun (which has been given out free in the boxes in my area for two years after firing nearly all their local reporters).

Smallc · October 13, 2009

The National Post should die. The other national paper is about a bajillion times better...and is read by about that many more people too.

dre · October 13, 2009

Nonsense. Although it doesn't suprise me that you and your ilk aren't daily readers of the National Post.

Whats this silly tripe about "you and your ilk"? Are you really that obsessed with the false right vs left dichotomy?

M.Dancer · October 13, 2009

The National Post should die. The other national paper is about a bajillion times better...and is read by about that many more people too.

I could go on for hours over the mistakes made by Black....and not corrected by the Aspers....I don;t think it will die, I believe Godfrey will keep it going. It isn't a bad paper...it's just that for most Cancom readers, it's redundant.

ToadBrother · October 13, 2009

The National Post should die. The other national paper is about a bajillion times better...and is read by about that many more people too.

Oh come on! Don't try to tell me you don't enjoy Lord Black's letters from prison.

jdobbin · October 13, 2009

The National Post should die. The other national paper is about a bajillion times better...and is read by about that many more people too.

Subscribers of the Post in Manitoba had their subscription ended and the paper was unavailable anywhere in the province in boxes for some time. The only paper that is on the shelves at stores is the Saturday paper.

Dave_ON · October 14, 2009

NO I am suggesting the government has the right to regulate lending of institutions which make their loans from loans they have taken from the Canadian people. I suggest this becuase the law for it has been on the books for about 80 years or so it has never however been applied too credit cards. The government can and should do this on outrages credit card fees and interest which are that way for no other reason then they are not regulated.

Responsible Canadians actually do get a good return for the money they loan to the bank. If all you have is a checking account that is empty except for one day every two weeks than you can't expect to get a good return on your "investment". There are many benefits to maintaining a balance in your account which I won't go into here.

The main issue you and I are having is you feel Credit Cards are a valid means of sustaining a lifestyle and as such the bank should be the one who is forced to pay for other people's irresponsible spending habits. I disagree and feel people need to live within their means, save for their own retirement and pay their own debts.

Comparing mortgages, i.e. a long term debt, to credit cards which are supposed to be short term liabilities is apples to oranges. Mortgages are insured and guaranteed, they are considered a secured debt. Therefore the interest rates can be lower as lost revenue due to nonpayment isn't a factor. Credit cards are not insured nor are they considered secured. If a person declares bankruptcy the bank, and subsequently you and I are out that money the borrower failed to pay back. That is why the regulation is not required, it is setup in such a way to ensure that credit cards are profitable and that loss of revenue is minimized.

Shady · October 14, 2009

The National Post should die.

I don't think we should wish death on any Canadian business.

punked · October 14, 2009

Responsible Canadians actually do get a good return for the money they loan to the bank. If all you have is a checking account that is empty except for one day every two weeks than you can't expect to get a good return on your "investment". There are many benefits to maintaining a balance in your account which I won't go into here.
The main issue you and I are having is you feel Credit Cards are a valid means of sustaining a lifestyle and as such the bank should be the one who is forced to pay for other people's irresponsible spending habits. I disagree and feel people need to live within their means, save for their own retirement and pay their own debts.

Comparing mortgages, i.e. a long term debt, to credit cards which are supposed to be short term liabilities is apples to oranges. Mortgages are insured and guaranteed, they are considered a secured debt. Therefore the interest rates can be lower as lost revenue due to nonpayment isn't a factor. Credit cards are not insured nor are they considered secured. If a person declares bankruptcy the bank, and subsequently you and I are out that money the borrower failed to pay back. That is why the regulation is not required, it is setup in such a way to ensure that credit cards are profitable and that loss of revenue is minimized.

No the main issue we are having is an ideological one. I have never said living on credit cards is a way of life. I have said that if the banks want the Canadians peoples money to loan to the Canadian people they need to accept our rules. You say we have no bisuness making the rules on those who borrow our money. I pointed out we do make the rules on bank loans but credit cards weren't out there when the rules were made so they have slipped through the cracks and need to be regulated like all other loans.

You are trying to change the arguement from should be able to regulate these loans by saying those who use them are poor money managers. Well that has nothing to do with it, the government is allowed to regulate the interest rates if they should so choose and should. Is my argument. I don't care how credit cards are used, if banks want to take the money from Canadians then they better accept the conditions on what we want when we loan them our money. The Government has a roll to play in this mixed system of ours otherwise the system falls apart.

madmax · October 14, 2009

Responsible Canadians actually do get a good return for the money they loan to the bank.

This needs a thread of its own... Regardless, I thank you for the humourous statement above.

Mr.Canada · October 14, 2009

I use my credit cards for almost every purchase I make. Gas, groceries, entertainment, etc however I don't spend the money that's in my bank account in addition to my credit bill. I pay my balance each month and never have a problem. I don't use it for extra incme or something like that but instead of cash, while I still have the cash in the bank to pay it off each month.

I just find it easier to use plastic then to go to the atm every day. I think some people have problems managing their money with credit cards because they look at credit cards as free money, extra money if you will. I'm not saying that anyone on this board is doing that just that it does happen...all the time.

Shady · October 14, 2009

The government can and should do this on outrages credit card fees and interest which are that way for no other reason then they are not regulated.

If you don't like the fees, don't use the card, it's that simple. Mastercard has never forced me to make a purchase using the card they issued me. I choose when and where to use it.

punked · October 14, 2009

If you don't like the fees, don't use the card, it's that simple. Mastercard has never forced me to make a purchase using the card they issued me. I choose when and where to use it.

If the banks don't like the Canadians rules which they must follow to use the money Canadians lend them to lend to Canadians then don't use it. It is that simple Shady. See I am using your arguement why don't you agree? Canadians have never forced the banks to take the money from us, they choose where and when they will use it.

Shady · October 14, 2009

If the banks don't like the Canadians rules which they must follow

Rules or laws? If laws, then yes, they have to follow them. I'm not sure what rules you're talking about. And lowering interest rates on credit cards will only make people use them more, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

punked · October 14, 2009

Rules or laws? If laws, then yes, they have to follow them. I'm not sure what rules you're talking about. And lowering interest rates on credit cards will only make people use them more, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

Well we regulate bank loans given out on money from Canadian government loans. These laws were created before things like credit cards and pay day loans were around. I am arguing the Canadian government can and I believe should regulate interest rates of all kinds on money lent from the Canadian people. Dave doesn't think the government should have a roll in that. However we already do so there is nothing wrong with us being involved in the same way we have for the past 80 years. Now we can argue what rules the government should set but first we either have to agree if the government should or should not have a roll in banks which take money from the Canadian people to lend it to the Canadian people.

So should they have a roll?

Dave_ON · October 14, 2009

Well we regulate bank loans given out on money from Canadian government loans. These laws were created before things like credit cards and pay day loans were around. I am arguing the Canadian government can and I believe should regulate interest rates of all kinds on money lent from the Canadian people. Dave doesn't think the government should have a roll in that. However we already do so there is nothing wrong with us being involved in the same way we have for the past 80 years. Now we can argue what rules the government should set but first we either have to agree if the government should or should not have a roll in banks which take money from the Canadian people to lend it to the Canadian people.
So should they have a roll?

The problem is you're lumping long term secured debt in with short term unsecured debt. The same rules do not apply. I don't think we can regulate credit cards the same way we regulate long term secured loans.

You also can't simplify it to should the government have a roll as that's too broad a question. How limited that roll should be is an entirely separate question. You're operating from the premise that the banks are ripping people off. Should rules that apply in one circumstance apply in all circumstances?

You're not looking at the big picture, or the nature of credit card debt. All services have a cost to those that sell it, they obviously sell it at a higher price then what they bought it for, this is profit. Now you're assuming that the profit they are making is ridiculously enormous but you're not basing that assumption on fact. Do you have a breakdown of how much it costs the bank to make credit card loans and what profit they make off of said loans? Do you know what the volatility, default rates, processing fees etc. are to be able to come up with a "fair" price? How can you say this needs to be regulated if you can't prove they're profiteering?

My point remains, if you don't carry a balance you don't have to worry about interest. The only people that are complaining about this are those who are carrying a balance, chances are they're not responsible with their money as Mr. Canada pointed out. Not to mention these regulations you're asking for aren't even necessary, if you have good credit you can easily shop around and get a great interest rate and no annual fee if you so choose. The choices are there, there's no need to mandate what choices we should have available to us.

punked · October 14, 2009

The problem is you're lumping long term secured debt in with short term unsecured debt. The same rules do not apply. I don't think we can regulate credit cards the same way we regulate long term secured loans.
You also can't simplify it to should the government have a roll as that's too broad a question. How limited that roll should be is an entirely separate question. You're operating from the premise that the banks are ripping people off. Should rules that apply in one circumstance apply in all circumstances?

You're not looking at the big picture, or the nature of credit card debt. All services have a cost to those that sell it, they obviously sell it at a higher price then what they bought it for, this is profit. Now you're assuming that the profit they are making is ridiculously enormous but you're not basing that assumption on fact. Do you have a breakdown of how much it costs the bank to make credit card loans and what profit they make off of said loans? Do you know what the volatility, default rates, processing fees etc. are to be able to come up with a "fair" price? How can you say this needs to be regulated if you can't prove they're profiteering?

My point remains, if you don't carry a balance you don't have to worry about interest. The only people that are complaining about this are those who are carrying a balance, chances are they're not responsible with their money as Mr. Canada pointed out. Not to mention these regulations you're asking for aren't even necessary, if you have good credit you can easily shop around and get a great interest rate and no annual fee if you so choose. The choices are there, there's no need to mandate what choices we should have available to us.

You know what move his to another thread and we can talk about this there. I would love to continue this discussion but this gone beyond polls really.

PS. I think we have made up some ground on the distance between us.

Martin Chriton · October 15, 2009

(responded to the wrong thread; ignore this)

Edited October 15, 2009 by Martin Chriton

Martin Chriton · October 15, 2009

I use my credit cards for almost every purchase I make. Gas, groceries, entertainment, etc however I don't spend the money that's in my bank account in addition to my credit bill. I pay my balance each month and never have a problem. I don't use it for extra incme or something like that but instead of cash, while I still have the cash in the bank to pay it off each month.

With a good credit card you get cash back. It's pretty stupid to not use a credit card to buy things. You also get extended warranties, etc.

Of course it's important to pay it off right away but that part should be as obvious as not over drafting your checking account.

Shady · October 15, 2009

Of course it's important to pay it off right away but that part should be as obvious as not over drafting your checking account.

It should be obvious, but unfortunately it isn't to some people. And then you have people like punked, who want to make it even less important to have to be responsible for their finances. Easy, cheap money for all.