The Canadian Federal Election of 2011

[NAB]

Ya, that damned global recession put an unanticipated crimp the system, right? I don't think Ignatieff and Layton have quite come to grips with that reality yet and are still in pre-recession mode.

Nab

[grammafreddy]

"One of our biggest problems is that too many people have swallowed this socialist bull and equate government with social benefits to them personally. They think they deserve all that they can squeeze out of government(s) and do not equate taxes with their demands. They expect governments to cover their pathetic *bleep* when they spend foolishly and get so far into debt they can't afford their basics and whine to have more and more social funding. Too many voters think it is government's role to be their babysitters and their mothers - and to clean up their messes behind them. They want (and think they deserve) more, more, MORE!"

So you agree with Harper with CMHC so people could get more,more, more house with no money? He's responsible for allowing that to happen. Most people don't realize that we on the hook for billions in mortgages.

Oh fercryinginthesink .............. who the hell forced those people to buy into things they could not afford and should not have bought in the first place? What????????? Mama said you should? Cry me a bleedin' river! This comment is exactly what I mean - wanting government to hold their hand and provide their every little desire for them. Just because CMHC and government made it easier sure doesn't mean a person should if they could not afford it.

Wannabee homeowners demanded easier mortgage terms, so they were given to them. Do you seriously think if people had not demanded it that it would be so regardless? Do you not think the people who got in over their heads should have not given some thought to their futures instead of amassing monstrous debt they could not afford?

I sure didn't see anyone from the banks, from CMHC or the government twisting people's arms and forcing them to sign those mortgage papers. Nobody was threatened if they did not take out big mortgages. There was no forcing - people were irresponsible and did it of their own free will.

I could get you a bottle of poison to drink - does that mean you'd drink it just because I provided you with the opportunity?

[grammafreddy]

I think the Bank of Canada, Canadian banks, and private enterprise are more to blame for that than Harper Groove. Of course, in Conservative and business ideology getting people to spend and keep spending more has always been an objective in order to produce economic growth and more private sector jobs. I have been rather surprised that in recent times the Harper Government, to their credit, has taken steps to try to curtail that to some extent.

Nab

To some extent, yes. But they couldn't have done it without Harper changing the rules. Now he knows there's a problem thats going to hurt a lot of people.

People did it to themselves. Trying to blame Harper or CMHC for the people's stupidity is ludicrous.

[grammafreddy]

I think the Bank of Canada, Canadian banks, the real estate and investment sectors and private enterprise are more to blame for that than Harper Groove. Of course, in Conservative and business ideology getting people to spend and keep borrowing and spending more has always been an objective in order to produce economic growth and more private sector jobs. I have been rather surprised that in recent times the Harper Government, to their credit, has taken steps to try to curtail that to some extent.

Nab

The government AND the banks (including the Bank of Canada) misjudged the depths that people could go to to do stupid things. Knowing that hurt was about to be happening to these stupid people given the emerging bad world economy, they tightened the rules again and put out public warnings for people to get their financial houses in order and to lessen their debt load - because the Bank of Canada was soon going to be in a position where they would have to raise rates - and then those stupid people were going to have a big owie that no band-aid would cover. In my opinion, Harper and the Bank of Canada acted very responsibly when they did this. Of course, it was then up to these stupid people whether or not they chose to heed these warnings.

[NAB]

See, that's the real problem. People have lost the ability to control their desires and their greed. They somehow came to the conclusion that the gravy train would continue to stay on the tracks.

Edit to add: And now they think Ignatieff and Layton can put it back on the tracks again. And that to me is just plain stupid that they would even try to convince us they can.

Nab

[HP]

The government AND the banks (including the Bank of Canada) misjudged the depths that people could go to to do stupid things

I argue the opposite (kind of). I think the private banks were counting on people going to great depths to do stupid things -- I exclude the Bank of Canada but not the GOC from this assessment. A lot of people made a lot of money by creating situations where others could do stupid things with their money.

Where is the impetus to control that spending urge? It certainly isn't in the Conservative caucus. The champions of free enterprise manage their government like they manage their businesses - fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter and only with a focus on economic efficiency to the exclusion of all other things. With the neo-fascists at the gate of parliament hill and people buying into the corporatism, I think we all need to be concerned about the long-term.

What really angers me is that the people arguing for a lower tax burden and a more efficient use of capital are the same exact group who were arguing for publicly-funded defined-benefit pensions 40 years ago. The baby boomers. Now they, generationally speaking, got what they needed from the system it's time to scorch earth. In typical baby boomer fashion we'll make a mess, make it a little worse, then leave it to Gen X and Gen Y to clean up. This is NOT something I got a vote in but I need to get a vote in how to fix the problem.

[EDIT: This is not my most coherent moment... when I re-read this I should be speech writing for Muammar Gaddafi... I apologize]

[grammafreddy]

See, that's the real problem. People have lost the ability to control their desires and their greed. They somehow came to the conclusion that the gravy train would continue to stay on the tracks.

Edit to add: And now they think Ignatieff and Layton can put it back on the tracks again. And that to me is just plain stupid that they would even try to convince us they can.

Nab

Exactly, Nab. Not only did they borrow too much to buy the house of their dreams, they also borrowed (included in their mortgage) to do alterations and repairs, put in a new kitchen, buy new drapes and flooring and furniture, and put a $10,000 playhouse in the back yard for the kids. Gravy train all the way to Stupidville.

[NAB]

The government AND the banks (including the Bank of Canada) misjudged the depths that people could go to to do stupid things

I argue the opposite (kind of). I think the private banks were counting on people going to great depths to do stupid things -- I exclude the Bank of Canada but not the GOC from this assessment. A lot of people made a lot of money by creating situations where others could do stupid things with their money.

Where is the impetus to control that spending urge? It certainly isn't in the Conservative caucus. The champions of free enterprise manage their government like they manage their businesses - fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter and only with a focus on economic efficiency to the exclusion of all other things. With the neo-fascists at the gate of parliament hill and people buying into the corporatism, I think we all need to be concerned about the long-term.

What really angers me is that the people arguing for a lower tax burden and a more efficient use of capital are the same exact group who were arguing for publicly-funded defined-benefit pensions 40 years ago. The baby boomers. Now they, generationally speaking, got what they needed from the system it's time to scorch earth. In typical baby boomer fashion we'll make a mess, make it a little worse, then leave it to Gen X and Gen Y to clean up. This is NOT something I got a vote in but I need to get a vote in how to fix the problem.

[EDIT: This is not my most coherent moment... when I re-read this I should be speech writing for Muammar Gaddafi... I apologize]

They are interesting comments non the less HP. I would be very interested as to your thoughts not only on how to fix the problem(s), but what we have as an option for a potential government that you could support as being capable of doing it to your satisfaction.

Nab

[grammafreddy]

The government AND the banks (including the Bank of Canada) misjudged the depths that people could go to to do stupid things

I argue the opposite (kind of). I think the private banks were counting on people going to great depths to do stupid things -- I exclude the Bank of Canada but not the GOC from this assessment. A lot of people made a lot of money by creating situations where others could do stupid things with their money.

Where is the impetus to control that spending urge? It certainly isn't in the Conservative caucus. The champions of free enterprise manage their government like they manage their businesses - fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter and only with a focus on economic efficiency to the exclusion of all other things. With the neo-fascists at the gate of parliament hill and people buying into the corporatism, I think we all need to be concerned about the long-term.

What really angers me is that the people arguing for a lower tax burden and a more efficient use of capital are the same exact group who were arguing for publicly-funded defined-benefit pensions 40 years ago. The baby boomers. Now they, generationally speaking, got what they needed from the system it's time to scorch earth. In typical baby boomer fashion we'll make a mess, make it a little worse, then leave it to Gen X and Gen Y to clean up. This is NOT something I got a vote in but I need to get a vote in how to fix the problem.

The impetus to control that spending urge should be in each person's personal budgets - and to not spend something they don't have. It's called living within their means. It's also called fiscally responsible. Again, just because some corporation provides you with the opportunity to do something does not mean that they are forcing anyone to do/use it. Sure beats me why people want to lay blame where it is unwarranted instead of looking in a mirror at who is truly to blame for their financial situation where this issue is concerned.

Sure ... Visa and MC and all the rest were offering low, low introductory interest rates and bonus incentives but surely to gawd people are capable of knowing they cannot afford things. That's where controlling their greed and their desires comes in. And yes, CMHC was offering low introductory mortgage rates, too. It all boils down to acting responsibly.

The X's and Y's are really not in such a bad position ... in fact the Y's will be more numerous than the Boomers ... but, of course, the Boomers are a very convenient scape goat for the X's indulgences and irresponsibility in their spending habits.

The pre-Boomers are the ones who will hurt the most - mostly because the X's and Y's have demanded too many social fluffies (and their resulting bureaucracies) which reduces government's ability to provide for a number of the Boomers who will be destitute when they get into their later years. There's a large number of Boomers and pre-Boomers who were not in a position to put savings away for their old age - mostly women who did not work outside the home and who did not contribute to the CPP and who have nothing left to fall back on. The Boomers are being cast in the worst possible light and are taking the blame for the X's excessiveness. It is anticipated that the larger number of Y's will cover the costs of care for the Boomers.

The OAS goes back a lot farther than the Boomer's generation and they in no way were instrumental in its implementation. See http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ ... RTA0007530 for some facts if you care to know more.

However, electing a leftist government will erode a lot of the profit from any generation's pocket and take-home pay. I'm looking for a government that understands Economics 101. Only the Conservatives offer that.

[ILBT uh-huh]

[0mni]

35 million people in canada, 300 million for an unnessesary election, how about 1 million each! then leave the remaining 265 million for job projects? BANG no more recession!!!!

[baisla]

you might want to check your math omni

[Woodenhead]

I'm with ya, Bushman. I read through this thread, and 3 words come to mind:

hook
line
sinker

[FreeRights]

How is this election unnecessary?

[NAB]

Interesting little read here..

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Leyne ... story.html

Nab