Mulcair can't pay off his mortgage

[punked]

You have to be able to prove it before you spout off to the press. I don't think much of the honesty or integrity of Ottawa's mayor or the people around them, but I'm not about to come out and say Jim Watson is a crook - even if I think he is.

The evidence that Mulcair might be bad with money and unable to handle debt is remortgaging his house 11 times. He can now refute that by pointing out his reasons.

You seem to be making some real suggestions here with out any evidence. I guess that is ok for you but not for anyone else.

He had an opinion based on some evidence (which we are finding out now as they probe Quebec's political establishment) was probably right and he gave that opinion much as you are now. I guess what is ok for you is not ok for anyone else.

Again how did he get a 300,000 mortgage? I bet that 100,000 dollar lawsuit plus both sides legal costs had everything to do with it. Court anit cheap and he lost.

Edited May 27, 2012 by punked

[Argus]

Again you do not know how he got to where is. Although I will tell you what there are plenty of things in this world worth more to me then my house and there are plenty of things that would make me re-mortgage my house.

11 times? Why don't you just admit that is highly unusual, and that living in a house for thirty years yet still having no equity in it because you keep borrowing against the house could be a troubling sign of financial incompetence?

[punked]

11 times? Why don't you just admit that is highly unusual, and that living in a house for thirty years yet still having no equity in it because you keep borrowing against the house could be a troubling sign of financial incompetence?

Because it isn't highly unusual. There are lots of Canadians who do this he has chosen to take the equity out of his house to use it in another way. There are plenty of Canadians who choose to do this. A house is an investment to a lot of Canadians and if you can get a better return somewhere else are you telling me you wouldn't do it. I guess you are just a bad business man. Again you do don't know anything about what Mulcair or his wife have done with this money.

BTW it is none of your business what they have done with it. I haven't seen any other MPs investments either. I'll be waiting for your call for Transparency across the board for all MPs. Then we can see why certain laws have been created and certain business have won contracts from the government wont we?

I will also point the headline is poorly written the article only says he refinanced. As I have pointed out many Canadians in the last 20 years have refinanced many many times. Rates have gone down from a high of 15-20 percent in the 80s to historic lows today. Refinancing at a lower rate makes him a good fiscal manager not a bad one like some here are trying to push with no evidence.

Edited May 27, 2012 by punked

[TimG]

Because it isn't highly unusual. There are lots of Canadians who do this he has chosen to take the equity out of his house to use it in another way.

The fact that he did shows that he is a kind of person who is happy to live with the risk associated with leverage. He is a kindred spirit to the wall street bankers who brought down the US economy and the last person we want leading this country.

[dre]

The fact that he did shows that he is a kind of person who is happy to live with the risk associated with leverage. He is a kindred spirit to the wall street bankers who brought down the US economy and the last person we want leading this country.

Not to mention the majority of Canadians who are also over-leveraged, have tapped most of the equity in their homes through a variety of new credit programs, and have little or no savings.

[BubberMiley]

11 times? Why don't you just admit that is highly unusual, and that living in a house for thirty years yet still having no equity in it because you keep borrowing against the house could be a troubling sign of financial incompetence?

True financial incompetence would be overleveraging your assets into real estate while we are in a serious bubble. Any financial planner would tell you to broaden your investments rather than keep all your eggs in one inflated basket that is ready to crash any minute.

[punked]

The fact that he did shows that he is a kind of person who is happy to live with the risk associated with leverage. He is a kindred spirit to the wall street bankers who brought down the US economy and the last person we want leading this country.

Again you are making crazy claims. You have no idea why or when his situation came to be what it is. There are plenty of fine reason to refinance and re-mortgage your house. So what are you saying? What claim are you making? It could be as simple is he has all that money invested in something that is giving him a better return then his house was and he could pay off his mortgage tomorrow. You don't know. So say what you are saying.

Mulcair's personal finances will become my business when I get to see all the other MPs finances. Until then you are making claims with no evidence. Something a conservative on this very board said is wrong and in this very thread.

Edited May 27, 2012 by punked

[TimG]

Again you are making crazy claims. You have no idea why or when his situation came to be what it is. There are plenty of fine reason to refinance and re-mortgage your house.

There are only 3 reasons I can think of:

1) You are an incompetent money manager and depend on equity in your home to stay afloat;

2) You are 'sophisticated' investor that uses leverage to maximize returns.

3) You are self employed and loan money to your business.

Since I believe 3) does not apply the answer can only be 1) or 2).

[wyly]

there was a time back in parents days where you could get one 25yr mortgage at a fixed rate, in my parents case 6% or $113per month...times change, mrs wyly being an accountant smartie that she is always looking for better deal, 6 different banks and countless mortgages later we're still okay, next time interest rates rise or fall if our current bank doesn't give us what we want she'll get a new mortgage elsewhere...you can't read anything into how many mortgages someone has...

[punked]

There are only 3 reasons I can think of:

1) You are an incompetent money manager and depend on equity in your home to stay afloat;

2) You are 'sophisticated' investor that uses leverage to maximize returns.

3) You are self employed and loan money to your business.

Since I believe 3) does not apply the answer can only be 1) or 2).

How about he lost a 100,000 dollar law suit plus his and the other guys legal fees for daring to say something that was right but could not be proven? How about that?

[bleeding heart]

The fact that he did shows that he is a kind of person who is happy to live with the risk associated with leverage. He is a kindred spirit to the wall street bankers who brought down the US economy and the last person we want leading this country.

I think that's slightly overblown, though perhaps the first time he's been accused of being a kindred spirit to irreponsible, risk-taking capitalists. (If we can call them "capitalists," for that matter is unclear.)

However, I think Dre's assessment is closer to the truth: he's more like mainstream Canadians than like Wall Street bankers.

[TimG]

How about he lost a 100,000 dollar law suit plus his and the other guys legal fees for daring to say something that was right but could not be proven? How about that?

Interesting. OK. I will grant that is a possibility. Canadian libel law is heavily tilted in favor of the people claiming libel. Do you have references to the case you are talking about or is this simply an improbable hypothetical? Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

Interesting. OK. I will grant that is a possibility. Canadian libel law is heavily tilted in favor of the people claiming libel. Do you have references to the case you are talking about or is this simply a hypothetical?

It is in the article. He lost a suit to a Parti Quebecois Minster for 100,000 dollars plus lawyer fees for daring to suggest that a prominent politician in Quebec was influence peddling. The irony of course is with all that has come to light in the past year about Quebec politics he could have very well have been right and he stuck by his guns. It cost him a boat load of money to stick to his claims but he did.

[guyser]

There are only 3 reasons I can think of:

1) You are an incompetent money manager and depend on equity in your home to stay afloat;

2) You are 'sophisticated' investor that uses leverage to maximize returns.

3) You are self employed and loan money to your business.

Since I believe 3) does not apply the answer can only be 1) or 2).

There could be many more, and just because you cant see beyond what you want, well, thats too bad.

As was mentioned, maybe he paid the suit off?

Maybe he bought a cottage and the mortgage (like most other cottage mortgages)goes on the primary dwelling.

Maybe he financed hi sown campaign?

Maybe he helped a family member in serious trouble?

Maybe he borrowed to pay to put an elderly family member in a nice retirement/assisted living spot?

See?

[bleeding heart]

There could be many more, and just because you cant see beyond what you want, well, thats too bad.

As was mentioned, maybe he paid the suit off?

Maybe he bought a cottage and the mortgage (like most other cottage mortgages)goes on the primary dwelling.

Maybe he financed hi sown campaign?

Maybe he helped a family member in serious trouble?

Maybe he borrowed to pay to put an elderly family member in a nice retirement/assisted living spot?

See?

Hmmmmm......

Nope. Incompetence. Not PM material. Case closed.

[guyser]

...you can't read anything into how many mortgages someone has...

Not to be persnickety , but people do read into how many mortgages someone has.

For instance? Try getting home insurance with 3 mortgages. Generally speaking, 3 mortgages means one goes to the substandard market where prices are through the roof.

[punked]

We can say one thing about this. It is horrible journalism which shows us where our media has gone.

[punked]

Not to be persnickety , but people do read into how many mortgages someone has.

For instance? Try getting home insurance with 3 mortgages. Generally speaking, 3 mortgages means one goes to the substandard market where prices are through the roof.

He doesn't have multiple mortgages though he has just one.

[TimG]

Maybe he borrowed to pay to put an elderly family member in a nice retirement/assisted living spot?

Ok. You made your point. There are plenty of 'good' reasons to take on debt that don't require one to presume incompetence.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Nice try. Doesn't work, though. He didn't refinance at a lower rate. He remortgaged. That's why an original mortgage of $58,000 is now a mortgage of $300,000.

You've owned your house for ten years? Do you have no equity in it after all that time?

I'm still wondering how this is relevant to anything other than the Vikileaks.

Hypocrites.

[dre]

Ok. You made your point. There are plenty of 'good' reasons to take on debt that don't require one to presume incompetence.

Thats it in a nutshell... We have no idea whether or not this guy made bad choices unless we know what he spent that borrowed money on. If he bought a sports car with it hes an idiot. If he invested it or used it to mitigate some real crisis facing his family, then not so much.

In any case... I dont see the problem with having real Canadians with real Canadian problems in government. Sure... If we only elected filthy rich elites that own scads of property outright then we wouldnt see posts about stuff like this. Paul Martin probably didnt remortgage his house ever year! I doubt Mr Harper does either. But so what?

[TimG]

I dont see the problem with having real Canadians with real Canadian problems in government.

There is a different between wanting 'average' people with average incomes in government and wanting people that can competently manage whatever income they have. You don't need to make a lot of money to be a competent manager of money. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

There is a different between wanting 'average' people with average incomes in government and wanting people that can competently manage whatever income they have. You don't need to make a lot of money to be a competent manager of money.

Sure sure. I await your call to know all the finances of Conservative MPs in the house. Right now those are the guys who need to be competent money managers. I don't remember one Con on this board asking for this over the last 5 years. Geeeeee...I...wonder why?

[madmax]

So he lived in housing that someone of low income could have lived in for a lot less then what he was paying?

The goal of any low income housing is to MIX the tenants with Low, medium and high incomes in order to NOT create a ghetto. Most neighbours don't want low income housing and many people of means never would want to live in low income housing as they are not always infatuated with the tenants.

I dare challenge anyone to go and pay more money to live in a project.

I could just imagine what it would be like for a councillor to live in one of these areas. I am sure there was always a story or two from the tenants.

There is something to be said with living with those of lesser means.

I do like how the cheap shots continue.

Jack Layton was a man who changed they way we think.

I think it was good, but its likely never to be repeated.

But thats petty politics at work. Its a very successful tactic.

Kinda like this thread and the one with Toews.

Only Toews wants to look into peoples everyday life and computer systems.

In Mulcairs case, he reported to the commissionaire who doings.

People can judge as they wish. It is an interesting observation and I hope its party of the Conservative Attack Campaign.

[madmax]

You have to be able to prove it before you spout off to the press.

LOL, do you remember Camerons book "On the Take" It ruined her career... but she was right.