Page is saying the Conservatives are liars.

[Alta4ever]

William I can see that you as clueless as whowhere, you have no practical knowledge of how credit markets work or how insurance products work, and risk works and is rated, you are fool.

You have know no and your posts on this are so full of BS.

Like I said you should go read the CMHC website you you can grab some insight on how the CMHC works. You posts show you know nothing.

This the same model I work in borrow money at cheaper rate then you lend it out to others its how the banks work.

Grab a clue, otherwise life is going to be very tough.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Keepitsimple]

William I can see that you as clueless as whowhere, you have no practical knowledge of how credit markets work or how insurance products work, and risk works and is rated, you are fool.

You have know no and your posts on this are so full of BS.

Like I said you should go read the CMHC website you you can grab some insight on how the CMHC works. You posts show you know nothing.

This the same model I work in borrow money at cheaper rate then you lend it out to others its how the banks work.

Grab a clue, otherwise life is going to be very tough.

I second the motion.

[William Ashley]

Actually I fully understand the history of banking and credit markets. You are still oblivious to the fact this isn't the CMHC it is 150 billion allocated to buying toxic assets from the banks, not 150 billion to insure mortgages or provide grants under the CMHC.

It is you who clearly doesn't understand the program and can't answer what the 56 Billion was provided from, you just are trying to burry an issue with nonsense rhetoric and lies. This is bank embezelment of taxpayer funds plain and simple.

The banks didn't have a credit issue, they opted not to give high risk loans. The banks have TONS of money and as stated wern't in trouble. Canada on the other hand does have a funds shortage and is running a massive debt and massive deficits. The banks are much healthier than the federal government is.

Do you want 1 in 3 of your tax dollars to go directly to the banks for nothing? Do you want half, well this is what the torries are planning for 2015.

Show me any indication the banks had a credit problem, or how borrowing the same amount lent to them creates credit?

Do you realize how stupid your premise is.

Edited January 17, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

Actually I fully understand the history of banking and credit markets. You are still oblivious to the fact this isn't the CMHC it is 150 billion allocated to buying toxic assets from the banks, not 150 billion to insure mortgages or provide grants under the CMHC.

It is you who clearly doesn't understand the program and can't answer what the 56 Billion was provided from, you just are trying to burry an issue with nonsense rhetoric and lies. This is bank embezelment of taxpayer funds plain and simple.

The banks didn't have a credit issue, they opted not to give high risk loans. The banks have TONS of money and as stated wern't in trouble. Canada on the other hand does have a funds shortage and is running a massive debt and massive deficits. The banks are much healthier than the federal government is.

Do you want 1 in 3 of your tax dollars to go directly to the banks for nothing? Do you want half, well this is what the torries are planning for 2015.

Show me any indication the banks had a credit problem, or how borrowing the same amount lent to them creates credit?

Do you realize how stupid your premise is.

Show us how the Global credit markets where are banks go to borrow money didn't freeze in the last rew months of 2008.

Show us real proof, like a balance sheet that shows these CMHC mortgages are defaulting and are indeed "toxic" assets.

No Blogs no opinion pieces, just hard data.

[William Ashley]

Show us how the Global credit markets where are banks go to borrow money didn't freeze in the last rew months of 2008.

Sure not answering by asking another question sure addresses what you know.

Canadian banks have large surpluses of cash, so much so they can fund the 50 billion Canadian deficit.

Canadian banks neither now nor ever have been in a situation where they were unable to supply credit. They make billions annually, which demonstrates their lending and return on lending does not exceed their credit supplies. Banks have a lot of assets, also this was a total pop culture ability due to the turmoil in the US canadian banks were untouched by. Harper the crook he is used it to give billions of taxpayer dollars to buy off the banks, when there was no legitimate reason to do so other than to give them money when US banks were becoming stronger. This measure is totally an embezlement of tax payer funds in a time of deficit spending, oddly in part caused by this measure which threw 50 billion dollars into the wind for private banks to get, while Canadians were taxed out of their pockets so those private institutions can get 50 billion dollars in tax breaks, while they are the richest institutions in the country.

Also "giving the banks 150 billion dollars" so they can lend more money is absurd. It is clearly embezzlement. Banks are private institutions, if you don't realize why this measure is utterly backward and wrong then you are blind or a traitor the the taxpaying public.

Show us real proof, like a balance sheet that shows these CMHC mortgages are defaulting and are indeed "toxic" assets.

"available Canadian data also features an increase in subprime mortgage delinquencies, but the delinquency rate in 2007 was still under 2 percent"

with the recession this amount has increased (although nothing near the us 8%+ amount of deliquencies)

however with 13.5 million home owners a 2% default rate = 270000 defaults. This is substantial. Also since 2007 the unemploymenet rate has also increased steadily rising from 6.5% to 8.5% this represents a 2% increase in people whose incomes likely have slashed, many of these are depending on time period payments like EI and after this runs out, they are reduced to Welfare which pays less. Not only has the housing market because less affordable due to centralization to urban centers which have had increased buying price lines, rural markets and smaller populations have had decreased demand and lower valuation.

Unfortunately I have not found anywhere the federal government has shared data on the number of mortgages or which properties they have purchased, so I cannot comment on it. But I do know since it was the banks who were given free hand to chuck what they wanted at the government with no oversight that the worst posible properties will end up in the profolio of the federal government.

Until you provide data showing otherwise this is my best assumption of market capitalism and the ongoing 150 billion dollar embezellment the conservatives have hidden from the public by deception.

Check these facts and tell me which ones are incorrect, as this is the hard data I have seen.

------

The worst part is that the Government then perpetually pays millions and millions in interest on all that "given money" it makes you wonder why the federal government didn't "loan" the money to the banks... odd because they are borrowing money from the banks.. so they are borrowing money at interest from the banks to give it to the banks.. this is TOTALLY corrupt TOTALLY CORRUPT!!!

Harper and Flaherty's budget for the public - fleecing the public cause

they are idiots not to see how currupt and criminal the Conservatives are.

150 billion dollars for the banks that is borrowed from the banks and given back to them with the canadian tax payers paying the interest on this "deal".

It is possible to see close to half a million defaults, although still under the US default rate. Only specific markets will be profitable, and until the federal government discloses what properties they are aquiring it is hard to see how much money will be lost from the trade, although to begin with the government is out close to a quarter billion dollars, just for starters. Bear in mind every property default they aquire they loose money on, especially if it doesn't sell, as they need to pay backed taxes, and upkeep costs, and any assosiated legal costs. It is a tremendous burdon, if they have 4% or higer default that might be 1 in 20 properties at 50 billion that is may 2.5 billion lost which will totally negate any interst gains over the maturation when matched with inflation, over a 10 or 20 year mortgage period - also the issue is that the economy is going to collapse in 10 years worse. Without increasing taxes to over 50% there is no way they will be able to pay upkeep costs on everything 0AS alone is 130 billion or more. CPP will start to be drained, and health costs will be twice what they are now, with provincial health costs close to half the budget already. You have to understand taking on a long term low gain high debt investment that is high risk isn't going to work if you arn't managing it as an asset - the properties and default have no usage, so they are losses, small communities will continue to decrease in population with no new economic drivers. It is bad policy, one of many the conservatives have undertaken, this combined with selling off income deriving assets means even less income to meet rising program costs. and these programs are legacy - they can't be cut.

Seniors will be more and more a voting block controlling policy also, so cuts to health care or pensions and old age securities, ain't plausable. Also this combined with cost of living increasing continually over the next 10 years means that the poverty line will increase, and those under it also,meaning less people paying more taxes than they are taking form the system. Flaherty and Harpers management of the economy by providing private institutions with free money - ain't helping the public, it is insulating private instiutions that won't be giving back to people. Domestic markets will collapse, meaning local companies that are getting the money will also shrink, those in foreign markets won't pay or locate themselves in a higher tax bracket area meaning those industries with divest into foreign economies to protect their assets. Meaning basically they are screwing over the public big time by moves such as this free money for banks, with tax payers paying a permium on every dollar given to them. It is insane, the more money they give the banks, the more money Canadians loose to them. It is a viscious cycle.

Edited January 18, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

Sure not answering by asking another question sure addresses what you know.

Canadian banks have large surpluses of cash, so much so they can fund the 50 billion Canadian deficit.

Canadian banks neither now nor ever have been in a situation where they were unable to supply credit. They make billions annually, which demonstrates their lending and return on lending does not exceed their credit supplies. Banks have a lot of assets, also this was a total pop culture ability due to the turmoil in the US canadian banks were untouched by. Harper the crook he is used it to give billions of taxpayer dollars to buy off the banks, when there was no legitimate reason to do so other than to give them money when US banks were becoming stronger. This measure is totally an embezlement of tax payer funds in a time of deficit spending, oddly in part caused by this measure which threw 50 billion dollars into the wind for private banks to get, while Canadians were taxed out of their pockets so those private institutions can get 50 billion dollars in tax breaks, while they are the richest institutions in the country.

Also "giving the banks 150 billion dollars" so they can lend more money is absurd. It is clearly embezzlement. Banks are private institutions, if you don't realize why this measure is utterly backward and wrong then you are blind or a traitor the the taxpaying public.

"available Canadian data also features an increase in subprime mortgage delinquencies, but the delinquency rate in 2007 was still under 2 percent"

with the recession this amount has increased (although nothing near the us 8%+ amount of deliquencies)

however with 13.5 million home owners a 2% default rate = 270000 defaults. This is substantial. Also since 2007 the unemploymenet rate has also increased steadily rising from 6.5% to 8.5% this represents a 2% increase in people whose incomes likely have slashed, many of these are depending on time period payments like EI and after this runs out, they are reduced to Welfare which pays less. Not only has the housing market because less affordable due to centralization to urban centers which have had increased buying price lines, rural markets and smaller populations have had decreased demand and lower valuation.

Unfortunately I have not found anywhere the federal government has shared data on the number of mortgages or which properties they have purchased, so I cannot comment on it. But I do know since it was the banks who were given free hand to chuck what they wanted at the government with no oversight that the worst posible properties will end up in the profolio of the federal government.

Until you provide data showing otherwise this is my best assumption of market capitalism and the ongoing 150 billion dollar embezellment the conservatives have hidden from the public by deception.

Check these facts and tell me which ones are incorrect, as this is the hard data I have seen.

------

The worst part is that the Government then perpetually pays millions and millions in interest on all that "given money" it makes you wonder why the federal government didn't "loan" the money to the banks... odd because they are borrowing money from the banks.. so they are borrowing money at interest from the banks to give it to the banks.. this is TOTALLY corrupt TOTALLY CORRUPT!!!

Harper and Flaherty's budget for the public - fleecing the public cause

they are idiots not to see how currupt and criminal the Conservatives are.

150 billion dollars for the banks that is borrowed from the banks and given back to them with the canadian tax payers paying the interest on this "deal".

It is possible to see close to half a million defaults, although still under the US default rate. Only specific markets will be profitable, and until the federal government discloses what properties they are aquiring it is hard to see how much money will be lost from the trade, although to begin with the government is out close to a quarter billion dollars, just for starters. Bear in mind every property default they aquire they loose money on, especially if it doesn't sell, as they need to pay backed taxes, and upkeep costs, and any assosiated legal costs. It is a tremendous burdon, if they have 4% or higer default that might be 1 in 20 properties at 50 billion that is may 2.5 billion lost which will totally negate any interst gains over the maturation when matched with inflation, over a 10 or 20 year mortgage period - also the issue is that the economy is going to collapse in 10 years worse. Without increasing taxes to over 50% there is no way they will be able to pay upkeep costs on everything 0AS alone is 130 billion or more. CPP will start to be drained, and health costs will be twice what they are now, with provincial health costs close to half the budget already. You have to understand taking on a long term low gain high debt investment that is high risk isn't going to work if you arn't managing it as an asset - the properties and default have no usage, so they are losses, small communities will continue to decrease in population with no new economic drivers. It is bad policy, one of many the conservatives have undertaken, this combined with selling off income deriving assets means even less income to meet rising program costs. and these programs are legacy - they can't be cut.

Seniors will be more and more a voting block controlling policy also, so cuts to health care or pensions and old age securities, ain't plausable. Also this combined with cost of living increasing continually over the next 10 years means that the poverty line will increase, and those under it also,meaning less people paying more taxes than they are taking form the system. Flaherty and Harpers management of the economy by providing private institutions with free money - ain't helping the public, it is insulating private instiutions that won't be giving back to people. Domestic markets will collapse, meaning local companies that are getting the money will also shrink, those in foreign markets won't pay or locate themselves in a higher tax bracket area meaning those industries with divest into foreign economies to protect their assets. Meaning basically they are screwing over the public big time by moves such as this free money for banks, with tax payers paying a permium on every dollar given to them. It is insane, the more money they give the banks, the more money Canadians loose to them. It is a viscious cycle.

No Links or proof of what you assert.