Canadian banks got $114B 'bailout' during recession

[PoliticalNick]

I hate to break it to you but things that were seized were things seized from people who didn't pay.

You seem to miss the point.

You said the debtors were bailed out and this is false and very misleading. The banks were bailed out from their own bad policy and decisions on lending. They in fact received quite the windfall by getting money from the feds to cover their losses and then being able to continue foreclosure and sell the property. They got paid twice and that is how they managed to show growth and profit while the rest of the worlds banks were on the verge of collapse.

I don't have a problem with someone in default being foreclosed upon but you and me should not be assuming the losses through our taxes while the bank still gets to sell the home which is what happened.

If the govt had really wanted to bail-out the country they would have given the $450-700 billion directly to the individuals (who happen to be who our govt serves and represents) not the corporations. The people could have paid off their debt thereby clearing bad debt from the banks ledgers and propping up the economy by putting billions in disposable income into the hands of the population who no longer have a huge debt load to service.

When you actually take an objective look at this policy in comparison to the mandate of govt under the constitution it stinks. Our govt is supposed to represent and serve the individual citizens of this country not corporations and what they did was serve the corporations at the expense of the individuals.

 

[petros]

You seem to miss the point.

You said the debtors were bailed out and this is false and very misleading. The banks were bailed out from their own bad policy and decisions on lending. They in fact received quite the windfall by getting money from the feds to cover their losses and then being able to continue foreclosure and sell the property. They got paid twice and that is how they managed to show growth and profit while the rest of the worlds banks were on the verge of collapse.

Who owns the house? The people or the bank that spent the money to build it or buy it for the debtors?

 

[TenPenny]

Who spent the money? Banks or the people they lent to? If the persons who borrowed the money aren't responsible of how they spend and then default is that the bank's fault?

You're saying that the banks' problems were due to loans. All of the banks' bad performance is due to loans? All of it? No bad investments? The only thing banks do is to loan money? They don't do any other investing of any kind?
.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Who owns the house? The people or the bank that spent the money to build it or buy it for the debtors?

Do you really need a lesson in this?

I own my house. I am the registered owner in the land title office and would be the registered owner if there were any court proceedings. The Credit Union who holds the mortgage is registered as the first charge against the property. In essence they have a long-term lien against it to ensure they get paid. It is no different really than a mechanic's lien on your car. He does not own your car you do but he can have it seized and sold to cover the amount owed and if you sell it it cannot be transferred without the lien being paid.

Now let me ask you a question.

Who owns the government? The individual citizens of this country or the fictional legal entities called corporations?

 

[petros]

Nope. Until you repay the bank, they own it. Read your flippin' mortgage.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Nope. Until you repay the bank, they own it. Read your flippin' mortgage.

Wrong.

I am the registered owner. I can renovate, change anything, even burn it down and I don't need to ask the bank's permission. They simply hold a lien against the asset. If they were the owner they would be registered as the owner. If they were the owner they would not have to go to court to get an order to sell or repossess in the event of default. If they were the owner I could not change a frickin window blind without their permission. If they were the owner then I would just be a tenant and they would have to foot the bill for any repairs.

I have read my mortgage and absolutely nowhere does it say they own the property, in fact it refers to me as the owner. Give your head a shake, if you can get it out of the corporation's a*s it is apparently stuck up, and learn the law. There is a reason they need a court order to foreclose and that is because I own the property!

You still didn't answer the question of who owns the govt!!

 

[petros]

Read your mortgage.

 

[Niflmir]

Canada's banks were sound enough that without the bailout they would have suffered, but hardly gone bankrupt. Maybe banking fees would have gone up and banks would have clamped down on lending, which would have been a good thing since those banks that were most responsible would have to jack up the prices the most while the more responsible ones would have attracted more clients. But they were still solid enough not to need the bailout.

Isn't that how the free market works. Get rid of the riff raff to make room for the stronger industries and retrain the people for those jobs. This would also send a message not to borrow if you can't afford it.

Yes our economy would have shrunk, but would also have become more sustainable too after restructuring.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of what the story you originally linked is saying. Banking is not a free market. Banks are quite heavily regulated, although apparently not enough regulations in some places.

But yeah, in my opinion this just goes to show that regulations are needed.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Read your mortgage.

Not sure where your malfunction is But you obviously are either a bank employee or just think corporations and lenders deserve to have special rights to hold over individual citizens.

Let me try to enlighten you to the legality of ownership. I own my son's car. I hold the title and registration in my name even though he makes the payments and pays all the insurance and maintenance costs. If I wanted to sell the vehicle I do not need his permission nor could he stop me without some kind of court order. Now it is the same for my house. The bank cannot stop me from selling it nor can they stop me from renovating or running it over with a D9 Cat without going to court and getting a binding order from a judge. If they were the owner they would not need any judgement to stop renovations, destruction or simply repossess and sell the property.

Ownership resides with whomever has the right to modify or sell without first needing intervention from a court.

Now if you really want to get into the nitty-gritty of land ownership read the land title act and you will find out that nobody owns anything. We are all granted right of use to the property by the crown who always retains complete ownership. That is why if the govt wants to expropriate your land it is you who has to go to court and fight to keep it not them who has to get an order to take it away.

All that said maybe you got suckered into signing a document that gives your bank full right of ownership for the duration of your mortgage, I didn't! Not only am I the registered owner with Land Titles but I am specifically referred to in the document as "the Owner".