I don't think you understand. The bank obviously didn't see anything wrong and kept refinancing him. Maybe he was putting kids though
college....I know what that can cost.
Mulcair re-mortgages Hse 11 times, wtf ?
- Thread starter Durry
- Start date
I don't think you understand. The bank obviously didn't see anything wrong and kept refinancing him. Maybe he was putting kids though
college....I know what that can cost.
If there is a reason for abnormal behaviour, then fine, explain it and move on. But no explaination leads to speculation. You gotta admit, it's very unusual Particularily for a couple both drawing professional salaries. I mean, if they can't get by, how are average Canadians expected to get by, ie put kids thru college!!
Particularily college in Quebec where it is cheaper than any place else !!
Well, exactly, if he wasn't keeping up with payments, or had crappy credit, he wouldn't have been able to do this.
Some people have weird ideas about houses, but they're simply assets, to be used as you see fit. Buy, sell, mortgage, hold, whatever. Should we be critical of any politician who doesn't keep his/her cars for 5 years or more?
Most Canadians don't remortgage their home 11 times in such a short time and still manage to help their kids, perform renos, etc.. What this discussion is missing is that this very dynamic is (in part) what lead to the housing crisis in the US with people taking on more debt than they can afford.
Clearly, Mulcair is not smart enough to competently take care of his own finances in the manner that he is back and forth to the banks to get more financing every couple of years. Sounds suspiciously like he is continually making bad decisions with his money and has to go for a bail-out every so often to keep afloat.
Sounds a bit like Greece if you ask me
Combatting stupidity is hard #Juan. Major repairs or additions to a home would justify remortgaging as would paying down more than allowed to beat rising interest rates and then there are situations like buying out a co-owner.
To be honest, if I'd had a mortgage in the 80's I'd have remortgaged 11 times since then too. It would have beeen extremely stupid not to.
Last edited:
Oh come on. He may also have been financing his running for political office. In any case, the bank was willing to refinance and we don't know, if he made any bad decisions.
Clearly, he is not taking care of his own finances in a manner that meets with your approval.
That's the only thing we can take away from this story.
Actually mortgages are a good alternative to liquidating capital right now. At 21/2% it's good to borrow all you can while leaving assets that are earning 4-6% intact.
To my knowledge, I believe that the election expenses are reimbursed to the individual that wins the riding.
In terms of the banks, sure they will lend to a credit worthy applicant, but that is not the issue here (in my eyes), nor is the use of funds for Mulcair. In my view, the notion that he had to go back for refinancing so many times suggests that his forecasts in the use of the money was not well thought out which lead him to continually go back for more. That possibility reeks of a poor ability in budgeting and certainly a question regarding why the money was sought and how it was spent.
In the end, this is a problem for he and his wife, however, considering that he will be making a play to run the nation, his questionable performance in running his household casts a shadow on his potential ability to run the country.
To me it's not entirely different from a person that opts to go for elective surgery and must return a dozen times for the surgeon to get it right... It doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence in the surgeon's ability.
Have you remortgaged your home every 1.5 years for the last 20 years?
If one of your kids kept doing it, would you have enough concern to question them on it?
It's not an opinion, it's true that these ministers are given specialty focuses for a reason.
If you're going to dig up dirt (as that's all you have left), I would start with Peter Julian.
First off, it's fine to say that election expenses are reimbursed to the individual, but in most worlds, you do have to pay your bills, so it's not inconceivable that the house was used as collateral. I know people who ran in elections, and had to do that, because most creditors actually want some security.
Second, I don't have a mortgage, so that question is moot. We built our new place and didn't need a mortgage, we paid for it as we went. Amazing what you can do with investments.
I can't say what I would think of one of my kids remortgaging, because I don't know WHY he did so.
If you can explain all of Mulcair's financial transactions and the reasons behind them, then you can discuss it. Until then, you don't actually know what you're talking about.
How is it an opinion that minister's take some responsibility for their own speciality?
Whether you agree with the notion or not, I've seen plenty of investment strategies that include remortgaging your home to invest.
You bought your house for 58,000...now it's worth 100,000. Rather than attempt to get a mortgage for a theoretical rental property, remortgage your existing home, and buy whatever rental property you want. The rent now pays your mortgage, and you own the rental outright. Lather, rinse, repeat. I've seen it done plenty. It's not 'abnormal', it's perfectly legal, the banks love you for it, and you're merely moving your investments around as you see fit. Just because someone else wouldn't choose to do it the same way doesn't mean diddly squat.
You bought your house for 58,000...now it's worth 100,000. Rather than attempt to get a mortgage for a theoretical rental property, remortgage your existing home, and buy whatever rental property you want. The rent now pays your mortgage, and you own the rental outright. Lather, rinse, repeat. I've seen it done plenty. It's not 'abnormal', it's perfectly legal, the banks love you for it, and you're merely moving your investments around as you see fit. Just because someone else wouldn't choose to do it the same way doesn't mean diddly squat.
It isn't neccessary to explain all financial transactions, your making excuses for him.
He only has to explain why his financial behaviour is abnormal. It's in the news now, his remortgaging is public record.
If he does not like it, he should get otta politics.
How does one determine if his financial behaviour is abnormal or your financial behaviour is abnormal or mine or anyone elses? If you're not in jail or in bankruptcy court, you must not have crossed any lines....