Ah - You conveniently set aside the ones that signed off on a mortgage that had escalating clauses for interest - Right they are innocent - Lots of people had a hand in it and I am not absolving anyone - But Fannie Mae and Fanny Mac were told what to do by the politicians - make home ownership available to Americans
Canada tops, Harper shines?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Ah - You conveniently set aside the ones that signed off on a mortgage that had escalating clauses for interest - Right they are innocent - Lots of people had a hand in it and I am not absolving anyone - But Fannie Mae and Fanny Mac were told what to do by the politicians - make home ownership available to Americans
He could do that, Goober. The house is small, only four rooms (and basement). It can comfortably accommodate two. But I doubt he will do that. He doesn't need the money, and he likes his privacy. Plus, if he gets into a serious relationship with a girl, the house would be big enough for them to live together.
Politicians told them to make houses available to the poor and minorities, but politicians did not ask them to do sub prime lending. Sub prime lending was purely the result of corporate greed.
There is the right way and the wrong way to help minorities buy houses. Right way would be to let minorities know that loans are available, to put the loans withing the reach of the minorities (advertise in minority areas etc.), to eliminate discrimination based upon race etc. That is what politicians meant. The wrong way is to loan money to people who have no possibility whatever of paying any of it back. That was done out fo greed, not because any politician leaned on them.
best check up on what the direction given to Fanie Mae and mavc was - How the reports were ignored - You are in error on that point.
If the economy was in the tank the Conservatives would certainly be taking heat for it, so they are entitled to take the credit now whether they deserve it or not. In actual fact since neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals believe in long term economic planning neither is entitled to take the credit.
As Earth pointed out Canada's relative strength is probably due to the strength of its institutions.
As Earth pointed out Canada's relative strength is probably due to the strength of its institutions.
you mean the Banking institutions,
And who help these Banking institutions to thrive the most through the years, the Conservatives or the Liberals?
Credit on Canada’s Economy should go to the Party who has helped these Banking institutions stay strong thought the years. We know the answer.........:canada:
But I think people are giving Conservatives the credit, Bar. My feeling is that if it were not for the relatively good performance of economy, Liberals would be way ahead in polls, rather than being neck and neck.
About ten years ago Canadians banks wanted to merge. BMO and Royal bank wanted to merge, so did TD and CIBC. Paul Martin refused to give them permission to merge. At that time I thought he was wrong to do so. In hindsight he has proved to be right. We don't want 'too big to fail' banks here in Canada.
There is also a little discussed change in mortgages that the banks wanted to implement back in the nineties, which the Liberals did not allow. Once the Conservatives gained power, they allowed the change - which introduced the so called 0/40 mortgages (40 year amortization, with 0 down). This change was introduced to make the banks more "competitive" with their US counterparts. Of course, in the US this lead to the sub-prime loan meltdown. The conservatives did make a big deal about the fact that they cancelled the ability of the banks here to give to 0/40 loans as thier way to protect our banking system, as it was causing a mini-sub-prime problem here too (which the government bailed out as well). Of course, they fail to mention that it was their stupidity that permitted them to exist in the first place. Sheer incompentance in my opinion - but at least they recognized they fubared that one (even if it was after the damage was caused).
Just thinking about a 0/40 mortgage makes even me of modest intelligence shake my head and get goose bumps. Only a crook or someone with a room temperature I.Q. could even come up with such a scheme. :roll::roll:
I just googled "fubared" as I hadn't heard the expression- it's good one and in my opinion synonimous with the word "politician"
That is a damn good question. I think the borrower should take full responsibility, due to the fact that to survive you have to look after yourself. I'm really baffled at the sad lack of knowledge young people have of money matters these days (my own kids included) Those of us in our 60s and older
s grew up with the realization that MOST borrowing is bad, and to do it to buy anything beyond the bare necessities was reprehensible. That was a good philosophy and the ones who adhered to it have money in their pockets today. Where the ultimate responsibility has to lie with the borrower, the government, the banks, loan companies and T.V. net works are all largely responsible. Of course it's all tied to GREED.
If I understand the sitution - the borrowers that default on these loans lose their homes, their credit rating, their possessions.
The banks that agreed to give out loans to people that can't afford them get bailed out by the government.
That seems to be a little in-congrurent to me. If the bank gave out bad loans, they should have eaten the loss - not have it bailed out by the taxpayer.
Not necessarily. For example, in the US, though Bush Sr. had contributed much to the problem, the US debt had been growing since under Reagan with but a short respite under Clinton. This kind of mess does not just appear over night, but over many decades.
The same applies in Canada. Since under Paul Martin have we been getting our financial house in order, and the rewards have finally come to the fore now. If anything, Harper has proven to be a big spender. It's just that the work of previous governments has helped to quell the damage, and since Harper has always had minority governments, it's kept the damage he could cause to a minimum.
You have a point there. But I don't think CANADIAN taxpayers bail out banks, that is more of an American practice. Our banks seem to be well run, and from the experience of just getting a small mortgage when I upgraded real estate and finding out first hand how closely I was examined before being approved for a mortgage (even thought I was more than covered by my own investment portfolio) I doubt very much is that problem will occur very often in Canada. Any cash you have over and above about $1000 you have to prove where it came from as they are so leery about laundered money now. Cash is no longer King. Just try buying a house with half a million $ cash....................................:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Neither can be totally to blame for the meltdown, but both have accumulated debt which certainly at least contributed to it. The last time we had a sound economic policy was under Paul Martin, and the US under Clinton. Neither of them were particularly good either, but hey, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed are king after all.