Page is saying the Conservatives are liars.

[William Ashley]

Interesting article basially saying the Conservatives will put Canadians in Debt another perhaps easily 100 Billion dollars. (more if Canadians opt for debt coverage rather than healthcare during their retirement)

54.2 billion

• 2010-2011

$43.1 billion

• 2011-2012

$27.9 billion

• 2012-2013

$23.2 billion

• 2013-2014

$19 billion

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/750574--chronic-deficit-looms-watchdog-says

The 5 Billion I was expecting based on Harper and Flaherty's speaches according to page is 20 Billion meaning they are driving it up the posterior of Canadians 400% more than I thought they were.

Using the 35% budget breakdown here is what I gather the Federal Government Tax dollar is going to

25% - mortgage buyoutprogram (25 cents on each tax dollar)

35% - bank interest on debt (35 cents on each tax dollar)

1% - war in afghanistan (1 cent on each tax dollar)

15% - municipal infrastructure renewal (15 cents on each tax dollar)

----

76%

24% - other federal programs (including federal employees wages (CF, RCMP, PUBLIC SERVICE), provincial transfers, etc..)

Edited January 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[noahbody]

Actually, the title of the thread makes you the liar.

[William Ashley]

Actually, the title of the thread makes you the liar.

How so, did you read the article?

[noahbody]

How so, did you read the article?

Nowhere does he even suggest the government are liars.

[waldo]

hey now... the Harper perogy move also prevents the intrusive HOC from actually questioning the Conservatives about PBO Page's report - how convenient!

Estimating Potential GDP and the Government’s Structural Budget Balance

Key Points

In its November 2009 Economic and Fiscal Assessment Update (EFAU), PBO presented its own estimates of potential GDP as well as updated estimates of the Government’s structural budget balance based on an improved methodology.

Potential GDP is the amount of output that the economy can produce when capital, labour and technology are at their respective trends. PBO has recently constructed its own estimate of potential GDP for the Canadian economy by estimating trends in labour input and labour productivity. PBO’s estimate of potential GDP is a key input into the construction of structural budget balances, and it will also be used to determine the rate of economic growth in our long-term economic and fiscal projections.

PBO’s estimates suggest that the Canadian economy was operating significantly below its potential in 2009. More importantly, PBO’s estimates also suggest that the downward trend in potential GDP growth observed since 2000 will continue over the projection horizon, averaging 1.9 per cent over the 2009 to 2014 period. The projected decline in potential GDP growth is a function of the projected decline in the growth of trend labour input, which reflects slower growth of the working age population and a decline in the trend employment rate associated with the shifting age composition of the workforce. This reduction in potential GDP growth will constrain the pace of government revenue growth going forward.

PBO’s new approach to estimating the Government’s structural budget balance improves upon the standard approach used by the OECD and IMF in their official estimates. Given the importance of the production of commodities to the Canadian economy, PBO further adjusts the budgetary balance to account for terms of trade or ‘trading gain’ effects. PBO also uses a microsimulation database to estimate tax elasticities across time, both over history and over the medium term, which is better suited to identify changes to the tax structure over time than the methods used by the OECD and IMF (i.e., based on annual data for a given reference year).

PBO is not aware of any estimates of the Government’s structural budgetary balance on a Public Accounts basis, both over history and the medium term, prepared by private sector or international organizations or Government departments. Finance Canada does however provide its own estimates of the Government’s structural or cyclically-adjusted budget balance on a National Accounts basis but for the historical period 1975 to 2008 only.

Despite several methodological differences, Finance Canada and PBO’s estimates of the Government’s structural balance track each other closely over history. However, since 2006 when the structural balance was estimated at $8.8 billion by Finance Canada and PBO (for 2006-07), estimates of the structural balance appear to have diverged. Finance Canada estimates a structural surplus of $13.8 billion in 2008 compared to PBO’s estimate of a $3.2 billion structural deficit in 2008-09. This divergence largely reflects differing views on the economy’s potential GDP as well as the impact on structural revenues of the run-up in commodity prices over this period.

PBO’s November EFAU shows that the Government’s structural balance is projected to deteriorate from essentially a balanced position in 2007-08 to a structural deficit of $18.9 billion, or 1.0 per cent of potential income in 2013-14. The decline in the Government’s structural balance relative to potential income over this period is largely due to lower revenues. Despite increased EI premium and PIT revenues over the medium term, statutory corporate income tax and GST rate reductions push the projected level of structural revenues relative to potential income close to their lowest level since 1976-77.

Edited January 15, 2010 by waldo

[William Ashley]

Nowhere does he even suggest the government are liars.

did you read how they are saying their deficit is a lot lower than expected. Hence they are liars.

Last time I heard flahrety talk about this it was 5 billion - page quotes him at 13 billion he states 20 billion ... hence Page is saying Flaherty is a liar.

Or Flahrety couldn't project the future deficit to save his life and is fudging and charley packing with his outword breaths.

Edited January 15, 2010 by William Ashley

[Topaz]

Is the Finance lying? Its more not knowing what he doing or does he? You judge reading the following.... https://www.phn.com/tabid/746/Default.aspx

[William Ashley]

Flahrety is now calling page a liar.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/15/flaherty-economy.html

Although I think Flahrety may be the true liar here based on his

"because there has been no government bailout of banks in Canada"

OK then, what do you call the 150 Billion dollars allocated to buying toxic bank assets

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[waldo]

Flahrety is now calling page a liar.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/15/flaherty-economy.html

Although I think Flahrety may be the true liar here based on his

"because there has been no government bailout of banks in Canada"

OK then, what do you call the 150 Billion dollars allocated to buying toxic bank assets

Really? Flaherty can manage the deficit without any spending cuts or tax increases - none whatsoever? I guess Firesale Jim is just warming up then - perhaps we should speculate on what the Harper Conservatives will next put up for sale?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Flahrety is now calling page a liar.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/01/15/flaherty-economy.html

Although I think Flahrety may be the true liar here based on his

"because there has been no government bailout of banks in Canada"

OK then, what do you call the 150 Billion dollars allocated to buying toxic bank assets

What are you talking about, this is news to me.

[Alta4ever]

OK then, what do you call the 150 Billion dollars allocated to buying toxic bank assets

What fantasy world are you living on, their was no buying of toxic bank assets in Canada that happened in the US.

[August1991]

Kevin Page has the ego to become the CBO.

Well, Canada is not a republic, and we don't have a Congress or a President. Kevin Page is unknown in French Canada.

Moreover, Page doesn't seem to understand that the CBO is just another player on the political stage. As Trudeau would say, "Create counterweights." Harper has created a Trudeau counterweight.

IOW, the anti-Harperites are happy that Page criticizes Harper. What the anti-Harperites fail to realize is that Page is criticizing Harper for not being suffficiently "right wing"

----

I don't think that the State should pay for counterweights, unless this is through the elected opposition in Parliament.

Edited January 16, 2010 by August1991

[William Ashley]

What are you talking about, this is news to me.

I've mentioned the bank mortgage buyout

Here is a dated article on it

http://www.canada.com/topics/story.html?id=a9579dae-1fa0-45ef-917a-fb00f70ea9f9

however the allocated funds have grown to over 150 Billion - while more than 56 billion was spent already for an incredibly unfiscal buyout of private tax bearing assets - to instead cause the federal government topay municipalities for unused land, where private banks would need to foot the bill.

It is also part of the festering - more money for mortgages to 10% rather than 5% downpayment - the real issue is that the federal government set up a fund to cover bad investments by banks.

This is totally backward and the government shouldn't be playing an insurance company for banks.. if the banks want insurance why not insurance companies to cover it.. well if it aint a safe enough investment for insurance companies to cover why are the banks making bad investments and being covered for it?

The only answer is to lock people into debt slavery and living beyond their means, when the bank of Canada is shouting - people are living beyond their means, and are taking on too high of a mortgage burden.

Probelm - the government is supporting the behaviour by bailing out banks for letting people live beyond their means and loose everything. That is bad financial policy.

Instead of cancling this backward policy it instead opted to pay the banks in full on all the people it didn't want to hold the mortgage of anymore. So they bought all the mortgages from the banks that the banks thought wern't worth it to them.

Now when someone defaults the government takes the loss on the mortgage and gets the property.. but needs to pay for property taxes and maintenance - and tries to resell the property through commercial real estate agents. which can take time, and will likely be at a loss in a receeding economy.

The thing that makes this horrible is that the federal government has put 150 billion to buy bad mortgages.... but needs to cover the costs for each and every property they aquire - including mangement and resale, upkeep and maintenance etc.. and they also get hit with the loss on any outstanding balance on the mortgage.

Flaherty has the odacity to say that there was no bank bailout, yet when this program was unveiled, harper was hyping how much of a service to the banks this was, even though the banks didn't need any help - harper and flaherty have heaped on upwards of 150 billion dollars for this program that directly goes into the pockets of the banks. The tax payer gets toxic assets for bad private investments, and the burdon of paying property taxes and upkeep on every defaulted home that the banks didn't see as being a good investment to continue holding.

It is total madness a form of imbezzlement and totally 100% against the public interest to take on toxic assets of the richest companies in the country so they won't take losses and Canadians can run a deficit so it not only buys 150 billion of assets that cost them a percentage of that to keep up and total loss on value - but it also needs to pay interest on the debt that was financed - from money loaned from the banks - to cover.

It is MADNESS.. this is the reason why I went from neutral to anti conservative because it was a very dastardly act to do to the public.

That insured Canada which would have been out of debt in early 2020 to instead be forced to make debt repayments well beyond 2040. servicing the debt alone - not paying it down already costs 1 in every 4 tax dollars.. and this amount is growing.

Paying off the debt is the only way Canadians will ever see real lasting reduction in taxes without compramising longterm fiscal security. Sadly 'the parties' are bank pawns (and in some cases bankers are mps and members) who would rather spend freely money they don't have that isn't their money to begin with so they can put more slush in the trough of their partisan intentions.

The buyout program is frankly like buying a retarded (read brain damaged) three leged puppy that has cancer,and a bad liver that causes weak boweles from a pet store owner who didn't want to pay to upkeep the one eyed rotting dog, and got their employee to buy it instead, so that his wages can go to pay the vet bills the pet store owner would have to pay, and the food costs the pet store owner would have to pay - frankly the employee isn't really an employee but instead a volunteer because those pay advances he was given by his boss had interest which now equals pretty much half of his wages, and the rest are now going to paying for the dog and cleaning equipment he needs for his job. The pet store owner is a multimillionaire who gets tax breaks from the conservatives, including one for employing a mental retard (read mentally challenged individual). <-- that is Harper and Flaherty's vision for public spending of tax dollars the public is the employee, the pet store owner represents the banks, and that is the scenario the conservatives are trying to get the public to buy with this program.

Flahrety bought 56 Billion dollars worth of messed up little puppies and wants another 100 billion worth of em.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

I've mentioned the bank mortgage buyout

You really don't get it do you.

These are CMHC Mortgages, these are all ready guaranteed by the government, if the mortgagee defaulted the government was still on the hook, however these loans have insurance fee's called CMHC fees. Nor are these toxic assets as the default rate on CMHC mortgages are very low. This was a transfer of asset to create liquidity for lending institutions. In fact from what I understand is that the government is actually making money on this.

I suggest you look up what a CMHC mortgage is.

[William Ashley]

You really don't get it do you.

These are CMHC Mortgages, these are all ready guaranteed by the government, if the mortgagee defaulted the government was still on the hook, however these loans have insurance fee's called CMHC fees. Nor are these toxic assets as the default rate on CMHC mortgages are very low. This was a transfer of asset to create liquidity for lending institutions. In fact from what I understand is that the government is actually making money on this.

I suggest you look up what a CMHC mortgage is.

Funny how the government described it as buying toxic assets when they started the program. Show me the books on how much they've made on this program.

Keep bsing, you are as bad as Harper and Flaherty... fact is exactly as I explained in my last post.

Government is covering the banks buts, losing a bunch of money on it and taking on bad assets the banks don't want.

Show me the books on money they've made from the CMHC pet project.

I bought a defaulted CMHC house for $30,000 under its appraised value (cheap house bought it for under $7000, furnace would cost about 1/5th to 1/8th of the price, imo, nice big garage also). I frankly from looking at the sales prices and the default levels fail to see how the government is making money from the program. The home cost me less than rent for 2 years. To say the least from personal experience I do not see how the government is making money from CMHC or buying the properties banks don't want to hold.

BTW I'm not taking about CMHC's regular operations, I'm talking about buying out the bad mortgages rather than just insuring them.

Youve got to understand there is a difference between CMHC insurance and buying out the mortgage that is insured.

While CMHC is good when people can pay for their homes it is not good when the unemployment rate is increasing and EI benifits are running out... think about it. So while in Good years the insurance can cover default loses --- the bad years will see reduced or no direct profit. Also you have to question why the government is engaged in insuring bank investment. Frankly 1. there is a private company that does this and 2. the government shouldn't be insuring bank investments as it is a conflict of interest. Will the government insure my investments, or buy the bad deals from me if I don't want them? The government shouldn't be giving a private industry protections the general public doesn't have.

Also the need for insurance raises the amount of money people need to cough up. I didn't do a mortgage but it would cost more to do a mortage and requiring insurance for default is one of those extra costs. Essentially it is a hidden tax, that banks benifit from and the tax payer looses from. It is a government penalty for taking out a mortgage, and getting this required insurance doesn't protect ones credit rating, so only the banks benefit from it. While the government sets up a corporation to adminsiter it, and other programs, it is still an extra expense that wouldn't exist if the government didn't require it, or the banks didn't require it.

Money taken from the public isn't a good war of earning revenue regardless of what it is for, especially if it is by increased beaurocracy and higher service charges. It is bad business for the government to interfere with trade and sales essentially private transactions and private contract law. The government should be wise in its use of administrative and statute laws.

If the government had a use for the land and properties it would be another issue. Essentially the government is going into housing which can be lucrative but is doing so by taking on the properties the banks don't want, which isn't wise. They would be best in buying private real estate with good values, rather than buying properties banks don't want to hold. It would be a much more prudent investment. The purchases also in mind of programs such as affordable housing or otherwise. Essentially though the properties are being turned over to private third party venders who get profit out of it, lawyers also profit from it. The catch is goods and services and other fees and taxes generated from moving the properties but this isn't making the government more money, it is taking more money from the people, that is a negative gain, not a fiscal gain for the country. In order to have gains on a national level you have to increase product, skills or incease foriegn capital stores or commodities - that is a real financial gain for the nation - Canada however is running an increased trade deficit now, its industry is drastically reduced, and people are going unemployed and untrained. Utter failure.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

Funny how the government described it as buying toxic assets when they started the program. Show me the books on how much they've made on this program.

Keep bsing, you are as bad as Harper and Flaherty... fact is exactly as I explained in my last post.

Government is covering the banks buts, losing a bunch of money on it and taking on bad assets the banks don't want.

Show me the books on money they've made from the CMHC pet project.

I bought a defaulted CMHC house for $30,000 under its appraised value (cheap house bought it for under $7000, furnace would cost about 1/5th to 1/8th of the price, imo, nice big garage also). I frankly from looking at the sales prices and the default levels fail to see how the government is making money from the program. The home cost me less than rent for 2 years. To say the least from personal experience I do not see how the government is making money from CMHC or buying the properties banks don't want to hold.

BTW I'm not taking about CMHC's regular operations, I'm talking about buying out the bad mortgages rather than just insuring them.

Youve got to understand there is a difference between CMHC insurance and buying out the mortgage that is insured.

While CMHC is good when people can pay for their homes it is not good when the unemployment rate is increasing and EI benifits are running out... think about it. So while in Good years the insurance can cover default loses --- the bad years will see reduced or no direct profit. Also you have to question why the government is engaged in insuring bank investment. Frankly 1. there is a private company that does this and 2. the government shouldn't be insuring bank investments as it is a conflict of interest. Will the government insure my investments, or buy the bad deals from me if I don't want them? The government shouldn't be giving a private industry protections the general public doesn't have.

Here educate yourself before you make yourself look more ignorant, maybe you too will one day own a home and have to learn about CMHC

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/moloin/

About CMHC

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is Canada’s national housing agency. Established as a government-owned corporation in 1946 to address Canada’s post-war housing shortage, the agency has grown into a major national institution. CMHC is Canada’s premier provider of mortgage loan insurance, mortgage-backed securities, housing policy and programs, and housing research.

Financial statements year end 2008

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/anrecopl/upload/2008-Annual-Report-Consolidated-Financial-Statements.pdf

[William Ashley]

Here educate yourself before you make yourself look more ignorant, maybe you too will one day own a home and have to learn about CMHC

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/moloin/

Financial statements year end 2008

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/anrecopl/upload/2008-Annual-Report-Consolidated-Financial-Statements.pdf

Dude Wrong Year! 2009 NOT 2008... the program wasn't even unveiled until the end of 2008 and money used over the 2009 period to the tune of over 50 billion.

also the CMHC is NOT the buyout program. Educate yourself.

The buyout program is more than 150 billion dollars allocated to buyout bad mortgages from the banks (note a large majority of banks only deal with CMHC - and this is representative of all mortgages in the country)

you are totally dung faced with your slanting of what is actually going on.

CMHC IS NOT THE BUYOUT PROGRAM.

CHMC is only allocated around 300 million dollars (although you might ask why they are being allocated federal funds if they are profiting..)

1. You are lying when you try to give CMHC's statements for the profit the buyout program is generating.

2. You are manipulating the truth when you try to conceil the 150+ billion dollars that is being given to the banks when "they are healthy" to buy out private contracts to make direct profit for the banks at the cost of loses by the government in not only direct loses but contigency loses and productivty loses.

3. You are allowing the government to run an equal deficit to the cost of this 100% unneeded program.

4. This program is costing over 50 billion tax payer dollars to benefit private banks... and if it was generating more than the investment then why is the country running an upward of 50 billion dollar deficit and projected to run a deficit equal to the cost of the program!!

The Conservativs are skinning and shamming the public for the profit of the banks. This money could of paid off the debt but instead Canadians are being put in the hole for the same amount by the imbezzleing and corrupt Conservative party caucus, and there is no way Canadians can afford to stay alive with health care funding non existant or tax rates upward of 50% on their private earnings while half them are on social security and old age pensions.

Wake up.

2020 is less than 10 years away, and by then there will be only 3 workers for every retirey. This from about 7 or 8 workers for every retirey in 2003.

Health care costs in Ontario are already over 40% of the provincial budget..

Canada will be taxed as much as the banks are at about 40% or more in debt repayment if projections continue, if not more on just managing the debt (not paying it down)

This leaves 60% of federal revenue for programs - the Provinces are already getting a large chunk of that 200 some billion of government revenue... honestly Canada is in a very precarious finacial situation by the turn of the decade, and they come fast.

How do you run a budget of say 130 Billion dollars with 1 in 4 people retired? and 1 in 4 being a youth?

lets say 5% of the 20% of retiries are wealthly leaving 10-15% on OAS?

How much does this cost each year?

With 5 million Canadians on OAS this level appears to reach up to around 185 billion.. 55 billion deficit just from OAS?

Come now?

Buying mortgages the banks don't want isn't the way to raise Capital for the government - building old age homes might be a safer use of public tax dollars.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

They aren't bad mortgages. Time and again we were told they were secure mortgages and that it was just done to keep the system liquid.

[Alta4ever]

Dude Wrong Year! 2009 NOT 2008... the program wasn't even unveiled until the end of 2008 and money used over the 2009 period to the tune of over 50 billion.

also the CMHC is NOT the buyout program. Educate yourself.

The buyout program is more than 150 billion dollars allocated to buyout bad mortgages from the banks (note a large majority of banks only deal with CMHC - and this is representative of all mortgages in the country)

you are totally dung faced with your slanting of what is actually going on.

CMHC IS NOT THE BUYOUT PROGRAM.

CHMC is only allocated around 300 million dollars (although you might ask why they are being allocated federal funds if they are profiting..)

1. You are lying when you try to give CMHC's statements for the profit the buyout program is generating.

2. You are manipulating the truth when you try to conceil the 150+ billion dollars that is being given to the banks when "they are healthy" to buy out private contracts to make direct profit for the banks at the cost of loses by the government in not only direct loses but contigency loses and productivty loses.

3. You are allowing the government to run an equal deficit to the cost of this 100% unneeded program.

4. This program is costing over 50 billion tax payer dollars to benefit private banks... and if it was generating more than the investment then why is the country running an upward of 50 billion dollar deficit and projected to run a deficit equal to the cost of the program!!

The Conservativs are skinning and shamming the public for the profit of the banks. This money could of paid off the debt but instead Canadians are being put in the hole for the same amount by the imbezzleing and corrupt Conservative party caucus, and there is no way Canadians can afford to stay alive with health care funding non existant or tax rates upward of 50% on their private earnings while half them are on social security and old age pensions.

Wake up.

You first problem is the government didn't buy them they did an asset swap.

The second problem you don't seem to understand is that all of these mortgages are insured, the next point is that these loans have a very low default rate, as shown in the financials I linked to. Next asset swap was a loan based transaction the rate that the government pays to service the borrowed money is less then the interest charged to the mortgagee. So the government is in a position of net gain on these.

What this move did was free up the balance sheets of banks (they made nothing on the asset swap) so they were able to continue to extend credit (at a time when the credit markets were all but shut down to new lending)(I had to deal with this first hand) to the economy, in other words keep businesses functioning as they all function on credit so that they can employ workers.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Alta4ever

[William Ashley]

They aren't bad mortgages. Time and again we were told they were secure mortgages and that it was just done to keep the system liquid.

You make no sense, borrowing 50 billion from the banks to pay them 50 billion to make the system liquid makes no sense.

Does not compute.

The only thing that has occured is:

1. Government is accountable for default and costs associated with divesting the property.

2. Government is accountable for interest on debt from funds borrowed to buy out the mortgages.

Secure - by government insurance? Dude wake up. Why the hell would you insure the repayment on a property you own? Get this though, you leased that property to someone else... who was paying you for it, but by buying it now you pay someone else to hold your own land. IT MAKES NO SENSE!! AND TO DO THIS YOU BORROWED MONEY AT INTEREST!

ok while this may be normal for Canadians it still isn't smart. the government has no excuse to be stupid, Canadians deserve better government than that.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

You make no sense, borrowing 50 billion from the banks to pay them 50 billion to make the system liquid makes no sense.

Does not compute.

The only thing that has occured is:

1. Government is accountable for default and costs associated with divesting the property.

2. Government is accountable for interest on debt from funds borrowed to buy out the mortgages.

Secure - by government insurance? Dude wake up. Why the hell would you insure the repayment on a property you own? Get this though, you leased that property to someone else... who was paying you for it, but by buying it now you pay someone else to hold your own land. IT MAKES NO SENSE!! AND TO DO THIS YOU BORROWED MONEY AT INTEREST!

ok while this may be normal for Canadians it still isn't smart. the government has no excuse to be stupid, Canadians deserve better government than that.

The Government borrows money at a prime rate which is 0.25%

The person paying the Mortgage is some where between 4.5 and 8% depending on the type and time of purchase on the mortgage, so the government is making 3.25% to 7.85% gross margin on these loans.

Go read the darn CMHC website and gain some insight.

If you have less then 25% to put down on a mortgage you are to high risk for regular lending.

This insurance program was created so people could buy houses with a lower down payment so more could afford houses, and minimize the banks risk.

Read the website.

[William Ashley]

The Government borrows money at a prime rate which is 0.25%

So the government is paying 140,000,000 interest on their borrowed amount to begin with

The person paying the Mortgage is some where between 4.5 and 8% depending on the type and time of purchase on the mortgage, so the government is making 3.25% to 7.85% gross margin on these loans.

If they don't default.

Go read the darn CMHC website and gain some insight.

I have read it and it mentions nothing about the program.

If you have less then 25% to put down on a mortgage you are to high risk for regular lending.

High risk for what? Not repaying?

This insurance program was created so people could buy houses with a lower down payment so more could afford houses, and minimize the banks risk.

Oh so it lets the people who can't afford houses buy them?

With an educated guess, if the banks won't loan to these people without the goverment paying for the loss, would you say these contracts might be a toxic asset? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_asset

Also if there is a private company that does this same thing - why is the government doing it?

OK here it is - the government doesn't need to be on the line for them but still is because by making the fee mandatory it makes money by increasing the cost of buying a home for poor people, while people who have substantial savings don't pay that extra cost.

Here is the other part to it, the government by buying the properties banks don't want - havn't created liquid capital they have increased the debtload by about 140million dollars per period of interest. Ontop of this the government has lost 50% of the 4 to 8% it would have gained without any risk. so you tell me if the government can get 2% with no loss and not have to accumualte debt, is that "safe" business. Instead the government has bought into the worst options of a decreasing market. Does this make sense? To you. Would you say the government took the right choice or the wrong choice? 2% for nothing, or taking on an investment risk the banks can't for a 20-30 year long term gain, when they will be taking on 50+billion deficits each year before maturation of the investment?

Show me how they are making 4 to 7% interest on this? Did you take into account inflation? You can say this is the rate but here is the issue people are aging and are out of work. As the population ages, they won't be able to afford their homes, and/or go into retirement elsewhere. with a low population increase and new homes being built in urban centres. There will be a collapse of specific housing markets. Geuss what properties the government is buying? Guess what the banks are giving them the good future market or the bad future market?

You can say that a portion of these will be paid for, but the fact is that the debtload alone will cost far more than any gains the program will deliver. Also you have to take into account lost government productivity on the project.

We have a small population gain, which doesn't meet the economic growth rate. This means Canadians are getting poorer. GDP growth 0.4% population growth rate 1%+ - this is not adjusted for inflation or marked (20%+ cost of living increases in some areas increased gas costs increased food costs with more and more of it being from foreign businesses largely the US and a trade deficit) which would contrast the divide even more.

This is what the conservatives are delivering all while doping up the population with subtle debt creating tax reductions while lowering corporate taxes increasing the debt even more.

The conservatives are giving you more of your less money to spend, but you are paying for it in debtload.

Each taxayer is paying about 2000$ in debt this year, even while selling off assets such as athabasca to the chinese - this after the year before artic oil exploration rights were sold to the US. They can spend it now but they owe it because Harper and Flaherty couldn't pay for it. Not only that but they arn't paying for the interest on the debt meaning that 2000$ is 4000$ next year and 6000$ the year after with about 50 then 110 then a $175 each year after. But hold on 1 in say 6 canadians will be living on social security meaning that they won't be paying taxes... meaning that 2000$ will be put onto the 2 or 3 canadians out of 4 who will still be paying taxes and geuss what 1 in 3 of those will be living in poverty.. so that is 1 or 2 out of 4 to pay.. well only about 1.5 of them will be working due to an absence of industry at a level to actually pay the taxes...

who is paying.. guess what NO ONE becuase that 1.5 persons is conservative and they'll have enough tax breaks not to need to pay taxes cause that is what harper will have to do to be around in 5 or 10 years.

Wake up this program is a waste of money it isn't fiscally responsible and it is only profiting private industry at the cost to the tax payer. Why because that 3 to 7% if it actually comes through.. is going to be another form of tax.

If you think that the economy will grow and grow and the deficit will fade away.. think about mulrooney and what type of debt he started with and what he ended with. WAKE UP before you sell your future to the ruin of Canada.

Read the website.

I have. When I bought my house I looked into it. Of course I didn't use the program, and I don't have a mortgage.

Pretty scary that 0.25% has turned into 35% of government revenues just to pay that interest!

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

You first problem is the government didn't buy them they did an asset swap.

This is funny stuff... so uhm what exactly is an asset? So you'd prefer to use the term Canada bartered 50+ Billion dollars of debt load?

What assets did they trade - please tell me 5 year maturing bonds at 3%? Or was it something like Canada.

Or the souls of Canadians. Hush I know I shouldn't mention them, as if they arn't already gone they soon will be.

The second problem you don't seem to understand is that all of these mortgages are insured

Oh and who insured them, let me guess... the government Canada is insuring its own properties. Brilliant!! Absolutely Brilliant!!

, the next point is that these loans have a very low default rate

Oh how much? and how much money does that equal lost?

, as shown in the financials I linked to.

Liar. You arn't linking to the project properties you are only linking to CMHC general properties.. which doesn't equal the worst of those properties. Meaning of the CMHC loans Canada has taken on.. guess how many of them are likely to default? What do you think the banks gave, the at risk properties or the ones that were about to be paid off?

Next asset swap was a loan based transaction the rate that the government pays to service the borrowed money is less then the interest charged to the mortgagee.

Not counting defaults.

Also what are the 150 Billion in assets that are being traded?

So the government is in a position of net gain on these.

Doubtful - what assets did they give away worth 56 Billion? and how much of that 56billion is the net gain showing. You are such a liar. Canada is suffering a huge loss from this project and won't realize its recouperation of only a portion of the debtload acculmuated due to their project for years.

What this move did was free up the balance sheets of banks (they made nothing on the asset swap)

Liar. What 56 billion in assets did they gain, to realize no gain?

so they were able to continue to extend credit (at a time when the credit markets were all but shut down to new lending)(I had to deal with this first hand) to the economy, in other words keep businesses functioning as they all function on credit so that they can employ workers.

If it is about the credit markets why is an addition 100 billion on the table still.

You are playing the books, and the fact is

1. What is the 150+ billion of funds allocated coming from.. what was the 56 billion of assets given away already?

2. You are a liar.

Edited January 16, 2010 by William Ashley

[William Ashley]

read this

http://www.socialistproject.ca/relay/relay25_dasilva.pdf

[noahbody]

1. You are lying when you try to give CMHC's statements for the profit the buyout program is generating.

How in bloody hell could you not know the meaning of the word "lying"? My boy is a little confused too, but he's five.