Flaherty Top finance Minister

[fellowtraveller]

Martin had no idea what he was doing. He collected the GST money that Mulroney implemented and his party was so dead set against, he benefitted greatly from the increased revenue from Mulroney's free trade agreements that the Liberals also fiercely opposed. Then he stole billions from EI and offloaded billions more onto the provinces. Then he started claiming a "surplus" that never existed.

Don't forget the manna from heaven when interest rates on the national debt plummetted just about the time Chretien got his first majority.

[madmax]

It was $54 Billion actually and your argument is based on the erroneous assumption that EI is the same as CPP, a trust fund that is invested or stashed under the GG's bed. While EI does have its own source, namely EI premiums it is still technically part of general government revenues.

One $54 Billion was taken from the fund. $46 Billion by the Liberals, and $8 Billion by the Conservatives.

Yes I know the Legal Ruling .... The government used the loophole to steal/take/diverty from the EI contributions of the EMPLOYEE and the EMPLOYER. There is NOTHING erroneous in my statements. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it wasn't stolen. The EI SURPLUS, were diverted by the LPC to their own pet projects. The LPC burned the monies and balanced the budgets on the back of EI contributions. EI MONEY that is NOT there today because the LIBERALS used government moneys for things like ADSCAM and STEALING from EI. LPC THIEVES with endless entitlements and a deep desire to help their corporate friends to the EI slushfund. Those same corporate friends enjoying a nice fat tax cut, while exiting the country. All Courtesy of the EI surplus. Nothing like taking from the Employee, denying them benefits and giving out Tax Breaks that would be impossible without stealing from the EI fund. In legal terms, its called conversion.

The UFCW who took the government to court for Diverting the funds, lost the ruling because there was no safeguard to prevent the government from stealing from the fund.

That law has been changed.

Regardless, the LPC balanced the books on the back of EI surpluses. By collecting large sums in EI, and by dening EI benefits to the majority of those who pay into it.

Don't worry though, between the two parties the EI surplus no longer exists. The LPC and CPC bled it dry.

[madmax]

Again not entirely accurate, while the banking problem wasn't Canadian in origin there were Canadian funds that were tied up in the US fiasco, as such that left less liquid capital for the banks to properly fund our domestic needs.

Holy crap. The banks profits were affected .007% by the US subprime debacle. The Canadian banks maintain profitabiliy throughout this.

[madmax]

It presents no risk to the tax payer while simultaneously it allowed the banks to continue to loan money and keep the economy moving.

Banks were not in jeapardy and were and are able to loan money. Regardles of the efforts of the Federal governments, perhaps you missed it, but the Banks are tight and not loaning out money, or loaning more money or changing anything in their risk portfolio. Its a free lunch, and easy easy money in a protected market. If you believe that the banks are keeping the economy moving, that I will leave you with such delusions. The only thing the banks didn't do was collapse because ........ the Liberals did resist many of the banks greedy and stupid business lobbies during the Chretian and Martin years. If left to their own excesses, our banks would have followed the American Gamble.

We have the safest banks, and the most protected banks in the G8. But we have given them billions while they continued to maintain Billions in profits during one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Actually a great deal of the economy is number crunching and most people would be shocked to find out how very little "real" value our dollar holds. However that discussion is grossly off topic.

Ditto and Agreed. Would make for an interesting thread of its own.

[M.Dancer]

Banks were not in jeapardy and were and are able to loan money.

I do not believe that was the case. Liquidity was in jeopardy and in ay case, as seen in the drastic plunge in M&A, getting credit has proved to be far tougher than it was 2 years ago.

[Dave_ON]

One $54 Billion was taken from the fund. $46 Billion by the Liberals, and $8 Billion by the Conservatives.

Yes I know the Legal Ruling .... The government used the loophole to steal/take/diverty from the EI contributions of the EMPLOYEE and the EMPLOYER. There is NOTHING erroneous in my statements. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it wasn't stolen. The EI SURPLUS, were diverted by the LPC to their own pet projects. The LPC burned the monies and balanced the budgets on the back of EI contributions. EI MONEY that is NOT there today because the LIBERALS used government moneys for things like ADSCAM and STEALING from EI. LPC THIEVES with endless entitlements and a deep desire to help their corporate friends to the EI slushfund. Those same corporate friends enjoying a nice fat tax cut, while exiting the country. All Courtesy of the EI surplus. Nothing like taking from the Employee, denying them benefits and giving out Tax Breaks that would be impossible without stealing from the EI fund. In legal terms, its called conversion.

The UFCW who took the government to court for Diverting the funds, lost the ruling because there was no safeguard to prevent the government from stealing from the fund.

That law has been changed.

Regardless, the LPC balanced the books on the back of EI surpluses. By collecting large sums in EI, and by dening EI benefits to the majority of those who pay into it.

Don't worry though, between the two parties the EI surplus no longer exists. The LPC and CPC bled it dry.

Again I think you misunderstand the nature of the EI fund. It is not like CPP which is a trust fund that is invested; it's part of general revenues and is part of the operation budget. It is not just lying around waiting to be used like CPP is. At the money was either spent or it was reallocated, they don't stuff it in a mattress and wait to use it. The best course of action would have been to refund the overcharge or at the least spend it on EI related programs. However, that didn't happen but it also wasn't spent on adscam. Adscam occurred long before the EI fund issue.

[Shady]

It is not like CPP which is a trust fund that is invested; it's part of general revenues and is part of the operation budget.

I believe it's funded by it's own tax that comes off of every employee's paycheque.

[Sir Bandelot]

I do not believe that was the case. Liquidity was in jeopardy and in ay case, as seen in the drastic plunge in M&A, getting credit has proved to be far tougher than it was 2 years ago.

So despite the bailout, or whatever term is in vogue for it now, there still is a problem with liquidity.

Don't want to give loans? No problem. I and millions of other Canadians don't want or need their credit. Consumerism is in decline. And that will only make the situation worse for them, and maybe everyone, since it appears they can never lose. Even when they win due to our hard work and sacrifices, we still lose.

Maybe we can start trading some currency the descendents of Rothschild don't control... like Iranian Rial...

Edited October 7, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Dave_ON]

Holy crap. The banks profits were affected .007% by the US subprime debacle. The Canadian banks maintain profitabiliy throughout this.

I don't dispute that profits were not affected. However, profit and liquidity are two entirely different things. The Government plan was not to save banks from going under, but rather to ensure that liquidity was maintained. While they had a number of long term investments that had real cash value it was locked in.

Trust me I'm the furthest thing from a Flahrety or a CPC fanboy but I have to give credit where credit is due.

[M.Dancer]

Don't want to give loans? No problem. I and millions of other Canadians don't want or need their credit. Consumerism is in decline. And that will only make the situation worse for them, and maybe everyone, since it appears they can never lose. Even when they win due to our hard work and sacrifices, we still lose.

The peril of the credit crunch, while affecting consumers (consumerism in decline?) has the real danger of stifling economic growth by making it extremely hard for existing companies to grow. Any company that needed a few million to buy new equipment found that finding a lender with a good rate was much harder....and companies needing a few hundred million even more so.

[Dave_ON]

I believe it's funded by it's own tax that comes off of every employee's paycheque.

Correct it is funded separately by EI premiums; however those funds are not held and invested. The government sets premiums based on what they think unemployment numbers will be and how many will be eligible to collect the benefits. If they don't take enough in premiums there is a shortfall which is covered by other general revenue. If they take too much in premiums it's a surplus. That doesn't stick around year over year as CPP does as its considered part of the general operating budget. With an operating surplus you have two options you spend it or your refund it.

[madmax]

I don't dispute that profits were not affected. However, profit and liquidity are two entirely different things. The Government plan was not to save banks from going under, but rather to ensure that liquidity was maintained. While they had a number of long term investments that had real cash value it was locked in.

Trust me I'm the furthest thing from a Flahrety or a CPC fanboy but I have to give credit where credit is due.

Clarified and understood.

[Topaz]

No we didn't.

Yes the Tories did... 75 Billion read the rest. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=12007

[Topaz]

I believe it's funded by it's own tax that comes off of every employee's paycheque.

It's 1.77 for 100.00 made and will go up to 2.33 in 2011 or higher.

[Topaz]

Correct it is funded separately by EI premiums; however those funds are not held and invested. The government sets premiums based on what they think unemployment numbers will be and how many will be eligible to collect the benefits. If they don't take enough in premiums there is a shortfall which is covered by other general revenue. If they take too much in premiums it's a surplus. That doesn't stick around year over year as CPP does as its considered part of the general operating budget. With an operating surplus you have two options you spend it or your refund it.

From listening to the ministers they have said that they paid 37 billion towards the debt but that got wiped out with the interest of the deficit of 56 Billion or more now. They are suppose setup a fund for EI but its not due til 2010-2011. That fund is going to have just 2 BIllion and we already know that won't be enough and that's why some people can't get EI even if they paid into. In five years you are going to have more people retiring and not working and taking CPP and EI, so the next generation will be getting screwed by their own generation to pay for the shortfall.

[Smallc]

Yes the Tories did... 75 Billion read the rest. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=12007

That's not giving money to the banks. It's completely different.

[fellowtraveller]

Banks were not in jeapardy and were and are able to loan money. Regardles of the efforts of the Federal governments, perhaps you missed it, but the Banks are tight and not loaning out money, or loaning more money or changing anything in their risk portfolio. Its a free lunch, and easy easy money in a protected market

??

Money is tight? When did that happen?

Mortgage rates are very low (as low 3.69% for a five year mortgage today!) and banks are anxious to lend. Why wouldn't they be since they are paying very little for deposits? It is no more difficult to get a mortgage now than it was a year ago, and cheaper today. The Bank Act and CMHC ensure that you still, as always cannot get a mortgage loan if you are a deadbeat.

There was a brief period last fall when it was hard to get money, but that is long past.

Same for commercial lending, lots of bucks available.

[madmax]

Money is tight? When did that happen?

Mortgage rates are very low (as low 3.69% for a five year mortgage today!) and banks are anxious to lend.

Care to comment on the banking institutions lending practices beyond mortgages? Shall I book you in as a guest speaker to the industrial community. If you believe that loans of $50,000 to business generating $20 million to $250 Million is loosening up, I'm sure you will receive some colourful commentary.

[fellowtraveller]

Care to comment on the banking institutions lending practices beyond mortgages? Shall I book you in as a guest speaker to the industrial community. If you believe that loans of $50,000 to business generating $20 million to $250 Million is loosening up, I'm sure you will receive some colourful commentary.

Sure.

Commercial money is much , much easier now than it was 12 months ago. The banks are still a bit cautious, which is a good thing. And they are making money.

Try Western Bank if you have a demonstrably good project and excellent credit.