Calgary's MP's, why are they all conservative? Would you vote liberal?

[Redlyne_mr2]

A lot of things that happen in our communities are because of city council and our alderman however our members of parliament are also important and what I'm curious about is why are all the MP's in Calgary part of the Conservative Party? Calgary is one of the most progressive cities in Canada so I'm surprised that it's all Conservative. Any input ? I posted a poll to see who you would vote for as your next MP.

[Guillermo]

I don't understand this, either. When I first moved to Canada in 2001, I was told that people vote conservative regardless of their political views, because they feel like the conservatives stand up for the west on a national level. Not sure how true that is, though.

[derpderp]

Ugh, the day Michael Ignatieff and his Liberal cronies take over Alberta is the day I leave Alberta and don't look back, I'd rather have the NDP taking a majority government before the Liberals.

Tip: The Alberta Progressive Conservatives & Canadian Conservatives in the terms of international politics are still rather Liberal, Fiscal Conservatism is what I think leads this provience to vote the way it does most the time.

Also, intresting enough, Immigrants are actually voting Conservative more then any other group in Canada right now.


LpeNG0rx0K4

Liberal Party: Who gives a fuck what the west thinks.

[Tik-Tok]

Lulz at the 42 year old video. National level Conservatives don't even give a shit about western Canada.

The 2 biggest reasons why Alberta votes Conservative

A) Grew up in a Conservative house
B) We all see what fuck ups the Liberals in BC are

You need another option for the poll Redlyne

- It's the MP and their opinions that matters, not their party

[sputnik]

Originally posted by derpderp
Also, intresting enough, Immigrants are actually voting Conservative more then any other group in Canada right now.

Not very surprising. If you want to be a successful immigrant you HAVE to be a hard working fiscal conservative in your own household.

That's why you have multiple generations living under the same roof and many working multiple jobs.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by derpderp
Liberal Party: Who gives a fuck what the west thinks.

Is that really true now a days though? I know this used to be the case 10 years ago. I used to be a fan of Harper but as the years progress he seems to have shown his true colors as an opportunist and nothing more.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
National level Conservatives don't even give a shit about western Canada.

Yup, that's pretty much it. But Liberals are even worst.

And you can't help it, they all pander to Ontario because of the population.

[DayGlow]

I have a great mistrust of the Liberals, not only for their divisive tactics of playing the different regions of the country against each other, but mainly for what they did in the 90's canceling the new helicopters. I believe they are directly responsible for the deaths of the aircrews for the next 15 years. It was a pure political maneuver not based in any reason, costing so much in dollars and human life from the cancelation, and then buying the inferior model over 10 years later.

The latest batch haven't been able to convince me they are any different.

[derpderp]

Originally posted by sputnik


Not very surprising. If you want to be a successful immigrant you HAVE to be a hard working fiscal conservative in your own household.

That's why you have multiple generations living under the same roof and many working multiple jobs.

Actually it is because of the social values, Canada has high rates of immigration from Asian and Arabic areas of the world, ones with very strong traditional values on the family and hard work which are generally Conservative values.

Alice Wong & John Cummins in Richmond BC are perfect examples of this.


Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2


Is that really true now a days though? I know this used to be the case 10 years ago. I used to be a fan of Harper but as the years progress he seems to have shown his true colors as an opportunist and nothing more.

Yah it is true, this is politics in the end they all are. You got to pick and choose and the Liberals still consistantly show they don't care much about westren Canada because they have 12 million voters in Ontario and 7 million in Quebec to listen too.

Besides, I can't even imagine why anyone would ever ever even consider voting for a political party that has been exposed for a multi-million dollar scandal, the damn people involved in it are still in the party and you would vote for them?

One big no on the Liberals for me is they want to ban semi-auto rifles and handguns in Canada. At least with the NDP they are going to give province a choice in the matter if they want to ban particular types of firearms.

[derpderp]

Originally posted by DayGlow
I have a great mistrust of the Liberals, not only for their divisive tactics of playing the different regions of the country against each other, but mainly for what they did in the 90's canceling the new helicopters. I believe they are directly responsible for the deaths of the aircrews for the next 15 years. It was a pure political maneuver not based in any reason, costing so much in dollars and human life from the cancelation, and then buying the inferior model over 10 years later.

The latest batch haven't been able to convince me they are any different.

Lets not forget about the two billion the long-gun registry has cost tax payers in Canada. Yet the Liberals are still to arrogant to admit they made a mistake and just end the registry already, they rather just play games and flex their political power.

Ignatieff knows if he stopped whipping his MPs into voting in favour of keeping the registry in power and actually let his MPs listen to their constituents opinion, the registry would have been scrapped a long time ago.

[1barA4]

I don't trust either party anymore. Used to be a staunch conservative, and our liberals are too dumbassed to trust (and I hate ignatieff) so I'd vote for a 3rd party alternative/spoil my ballot (technically, voting for one of the loser parties is like spoiling your ballot anyways)

[mazdavirgin]

:facepalm:

At all the people saying stuff about being fiscally conservative. You do realize your fiscally conservative government has just put us into more dept in one year than any government in Canadian history? The liberals with Paul Martin and Chretien actually balanced the budget... A little revisionism?

Anyways politics in Alberta is such a sad affair. We keep electing the same party over and over again. It's so bad you can run people like Rob Anders who don't even show up to debates and don't even go door to door in their ridings yet they are elected with resounding victories. We haven't had a change of government in Alberta since 1971. Alberta is a perfect example of a lack of democracy. People are just too daft to vote on issues. People rant and rave about Ontario and Quebec being always liberal but they change their minds far more often than Albertans. :rofl:

I always get a kick out of the low income folk who keep voting conservative. It sure seems like people just want to shoot themselves in the foot.

[derpderp]

This is the same story, across the globe, governments are taking a Keynesian economics method to get out of the recession, which is going to cost a few bucks, I doubt it would be any diffrent the Liberals or NDP had power at the moment.

Alberta hasn't always elected the same parties federally, look at the reform party in the 1990's, the Conservatives hardly even exisited on the map at that time. Alberta is an example of a functioning democracy if you ask me, sure they get comfortable and let things go, but when they get upset grassroots movements pop up that wash out the old.

The Social Credit was abruptly taken out of power in 1971 after being in power from '35 to '67, then the PC's took over and have been in power since '71. Now the PC's are under threat by the WAP due to people being upset with Stel Mac and the PC's, sounds like functioning Democracy to me.

Last, I don't under the low-income comment, ok Conservatives don't tend to be as supporting of expanding social programs and they tend to value self-sufficiency more. Can you not believe in self-sufficiency just because you're poor? Being young i'll say I don't have tons of money, i'll straight up admit I made only about 30k this year. I saved tons of money this year and will use it to return to school next fall, that is what a believe in, the security net has its purpose, but it isn't suppose to be their so you can take risks. Besides we can spend forever arguing economics, I personally feel that low-tax and small government, especially in a culture like Alberta's breeds more wealth and growth then any other.

[revelations]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
B) We all see what fuck ups the Liberals in BC are

You need another option for the poll Redlyne

- It's the MP and their opinions that matters, not their party

The BC liberals are pretty much centre - not related to the federal liberals at all - although the distrust of their liars - I mean leaders, is the same.



Originally posted by DayGlow
I have a great mistrust of the Liberals, not only for their divisive tactics of playing the different regions of the country against each other, but mainly for what they did in the 90's canceling the new helicopters. I believe they are directly responsible for the deaths of the aircrews for the next 15 years. It was a pure political maneuver not based in any reason, costing so much in dollars and human life from the cancelation, and then buying the inferior model over 10 years later.

The latest batch haven't been able to convince me they are any different.

Exactly, thats all it was - and were seeing the same rhetoric from the Liberals now regarding the F-35 situation - although the CF-18's are nowhere near as in bad shape as the SeaKings are (another topic).

[masoncgy]

As long as there are people in Alberta who lived through the days of the NEP around, the Liberals will NEVER stand a chance of making a break through.

The Liberals don't give a crap about Western Canada, just our resource dollars. At least the Conservatives somewhat defend our interests, even though they pretty much have to pander to the opposition because of their minority government status.

We wouldn't have sank so much into deficit had the Liberals & NDP not concocted a backroom deal to hijack power, ensuring that Harper & co HAD to spend, spend, spend.

Of course, these same twits now turn around and accuse the Conservatives of spending too much... it's so ridiculous.

We need a Conservative majority in this country. That said, I want a new leader at the helm too.

[kertejud2]

I vote for other parties all the time (Marxist-Leninist, Green, and with any luck the Pirate Party the next time around). Until Lee Richardson is gone from my riding I'll be tossing a vote to some poor asshole who shouldn't have wasted their time filling out the paperwork to get their name on the ballot. To think that Joe Clark was my MP not that long ago, now I have this asshole. If somebody else runs on the CPC ticket I'd be more than willing to go back to the blue. But I find myself stuck with this useless backbencher for the foreseeable future.

I can't vote Liberal unless some prodigy decides to run in my riding, a red Tory on the Liberal ticket who'd be guaranteed one of the meaningful cabinet positions if elected sort of prodigy. Since that wont happen, might as well throw my vote away (and I think it would be hilarious if a Marxist-Leninist candidate were elected in Calgary).


As for some insight on Canadian voting patterns:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/conservative-voters-rock-solid-by-reflex/article1773968/


A poll came out last week that showed just how rock-solid is the Conservative Party’s hold on 30 per cent of the electorate.

Asked who was responsible for Canada’s humiliating third-place finish in the three-country competition for the United Nations Security Council, 30 per cent responded: Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

The Conservative spin machine blamed Mr. Ignatieff for that defeat. The charge was blatantly untrue, as every UN observer, including a string of former ambassadors, attested. That 30 per cent of the electorate swallowed the distortion illustrates that group will believe just about anything from the party, and thus constitutes one irreducible bloc of voters in Canadian politics.

[mazdavirgin]

Frankly it's amazing how people believe the crap the conservatives spew. I can't help but think people are morons if they believe it was the liberal parties fault we didn't get the seat in the UN. If anything it was the fault of us supporting Israel which is a choice Stephen Harper made. Now right or wrong it doesn't matter it is still not the liberals that are to blame.

On the topic of the deficit it was no one else than Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper who spent us into such a deficit. Arguing otherwise is foolish and narrow minded. Last time Stephen Harper was asked to work with the opposition he instead chose to prorogue parliament and now you are telling me it's the oppositions fault he spent us into a retarded amount of debt?

Just to be clear I don't care who the hell gets elected as long as there is political change and well frankly the PC has been running the show here since 1971 and there are no signs of this changing anytime soon. All that means if more and more corruption as more skeletons get swept under the rug by the party in power.

The idiocracy is now... Just keep voting the same way Rutherford tells you it won't be long we will have our own balanced news up here for all the Albertans :) Fox news under the guise of the Sun and then the transition will be complete. Alberta the republican state.

[derpderp]

Interesting concept MV, I guess if anyone disagrees with you it is obviously because their morons and just simply don't understand your point of view, I guess I am a moron. That poll said 30% thought it was actually the Liberals fault for not getting a seat in the UN security council, so what does it say about the other 60%?

I read the G&M daily and it is just as packed full of media ideologies as any other paper, just look at almost all the comments left by people that make it to the top of the page by the user rating system. Ignatieff could murder someone and “progressives” would spin it into a blame game against Harper. But hey, a Liberally bias media is ok, but not a Conservatively bias one.

I never said the deficit wasn't Harpers fault, I said it wouldn't be any different if the NDP or Liberals were in power, because at the moment a Keynesian economics angle has been taken by all first world nations to get out of the recession. What are your comments on situation that currently Canada has managed to fair the recession better then most of our friends? It was the Conservative parties Economic Action Plan that kept us rather stable over the last two years.

Also, if you could please point me to the massive corruption you speak of? I’d like to see it and I am sure the media would love it too.

[derpderp]

double post. :nut:

[CUG]

I wouldn't EVER vote liberal in Canada. We don't have to. Voting Conservative is pretty much voting liberal anyways.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by 1barA4
I don't trust either party anymore.

Me either.

I wish the ballots had a last option for "None of the above".

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Yup, that's pretty much it. But Liberals are even worst.

And you can't help it, they all pander to Ontario because of the population.

Even worse; Quebec.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by derpderp
Interesting concept MV, I guess if anyone disagrees with you it is obviously because their morons and just simply don't understand your point of view, I guess I am a moron. That poll said 30% thought it was actually the Liberals fault for not getting a seat in the UN security council, so what does it say about the other 60%?

* they're

*70%

(Normally I would let these things slide but considering the context I got a chuckle out of it).


What are your comments on situation that currently Canada has managed to fair the recession better then most of our friends? It was the Conservative parties Economic Action Plan that kept us rather stable over the last two years.

The main reason Canada was in such a good position was because of the banking reforms put in by previous governments (both Mulroney and Chretien). The fact Canada only needed to spend on public works projects in the Action Plan and not bail out banks left, right and centre as well is what made things so peachy as compared with the rest of the world.

[Canmorite]

I would consider myself a fiscal conservative, but socially liberal. I used to support Harper but I agree less and less with what hes doing. Mainly, the war in Afghanistan and now the extension of that war.

I never considered myself very Liberal, but I watch MSNBC more than any other network, and they're apparently very Liberal :dunno:

For right now, I wouldn't vote Liberal. I find Liberals have a poorer grasp of economics, budgetary finance, and its effects on the economy. Not that Conservatives are always better though. An Econ degree should be a requirement for holding public office.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by Canmorite
I would consider myself a fiscal conservative, but socially liberal. I used to support Harper but I agree less and less with what hes doing. Mainly, the war in Afghanistan and now the extension of that war.

I never considered myself very Liberal, but I watch MSNBC more than any other network, and they're apparently very Liberal :dunno:

For right now, I wouldn't vote Liberal. I find Liberals have a poorer grasp of economics, budgetary finance, and its effects on the economy. Not that Conservatives are always better though. An Econ degree should be a requirement for holding public office.
I feel the same.

[Guillermo]

I don't understand why people always refer to the "leftist" media. That is simply not true! NPR in the states is liberal, for example... but the major networks are pretty middle-of-the-road, and if anything, are serving the interests of their multi-national corporate advertisers.

It upsets me when so-called "conservatives" point their fingers at mainstream media, and blame the left for how the news is reported. If anything, these folks should be upset with the way corporate interests are permitted to control our politics via their control on the media outlets.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2

The fact Canada only needed to spend on public works projects in the Action Plan and not bail out banks left, right and centre as well is what made things so peachy as compared with the rest of the world.

Guess you didn't get the memo:

Coles: There was a 75 Billion dollar Canadian Bank Bailout.



Canada's Bank Bailout

The 64 billion dollar budget deficit should come as no surprise.

It is directly related to a 75 billion dollar bank bailout program for Canada's chartered banks, announced, virtually unnoticed, four days before the October Federal election.

The bank bailout received close to no media coverage; its budgetary implications were not analyzed.

In a statement by Prime Minister Harper on October 10, the bank bailout was casually presented as a commitment by the Federal government to purchase an initial $25 billion in "secure" bank mortgages from the Canadian chartered banks. The transaction would be implemented through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp:

"Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) will purchase up to $25 billion in insured mortgage pools as part of the Government of Canada’s plan, announced today, to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada." (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Supports Canadian Credit Markets, CHMC Press Release, 10 October 2009)

The decision implies a money transfer into the coffers of Canada's financial institutions. The money is "fungible" and can be used by the banks as they see fit:

"The federal government's [initial] $25-billion takeover of bank-held mortgages to ease a growing credit crunch faced by the country's financial institutions is not a bailout similar to recent moves made in the United States and other Western countries, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Friday.

"This is not a bailout; this is a market transaction that will cost the government nothing," he told reporters at a campaign rally in Brantford, Ont., ahead of Tuesday's federal election.

"We are not going in and buying bad assets. What we're doing is simply exchanging assets that we already hold the insurance on and the reason we're doing this is to get out in front. The issue here is not protecting the banks." (CBC News October 10, 2008, emphasis added)

The 25 billion dollar allocation was announced four days prior to the elections. Two days following the federal elections, the first mortgage purchase took place leading to an initial cash injection of 5 billion into the coffers of the chartered banks.

Barely a month following the federal election, on November 12 2008, another $50 billion allocation was announced.

It received no news coverage. Moreover, opposition party leaders did not analyze the official statement of the Ministry of Finance.

The likely consequences of the Canada bank bailout on the federal fiscal structure were not the object of discussion or political debate.

The text of the official statement reads as follows:

"The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today announced the Government will purchase up to an additional $50 billion of insured mortgage pools by the end of the fiscal year as part of its ongoing efforts to maintain the availability of longer-term credit in Canada.

This action will increase to $75 billion the maximum value of securities purchased through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) under this program.

"At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada's financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding," said Minister Flaherty.(The Main Wire, November 12, 2008, emphasis added).

At the height of the election campaign, Prime Minister Harper stated emphatically that: "this is not a bailout... it will cost the government nothing." (CBC News, October 10, 2008).

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: "This program is an efficient, cost-effective and safe way to support lending in Canada that comes at no fiscal cost to taxpayers."(Ibid)

Yet Finance Minister Flaherty contradicts his own statement when he acknowledges that the project will drive up the public debt:

Under the proposal, Ottawa plans to sell a combination of government bonds and other public debt instruments to raise the $25 billion. Then CMHC will ask the banks and other financial institutions to ascertain how much debt they would like to sell to the agency, using a process known as a reverse auction. ...

Flaherty said the action would "make loans and mortgages more available and more affordable for ordinary Canadians and businesses."(Ibid, emphasis added)

The official Ministry of Finance statement confirms that the operation will be financed by the Treasury. Prime Minister Harper claims that "it will cost the government nothing" because the net public debt from an accounting point of view remains the same. While the operation is casually described as a transfer of assets from the banks to the CMHC, what we dealing with is a cash injection equivalent to 4.6% of Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is financed through a massive public debt operation.

The necessary funds (requiring the issuing of government debt in the form of T-Bills and government bonds) are transferred to the CHMC, which in turn upon completion of the mortage purchases, channels the funds to the chartered banks:

"The first tranche of the program, for purchases up to $25 billion, was announced on October 10. These purchases will be completed by November 21. Under the initiative announced today, Canadian financial institutions will have access to up to an additional $50 billion of longer-term funding, bringing the total for the IMPP to $75 billion. The extension of the IMPP will be financed through increased issuance of Treasury bills and bonds. The Government will be consulting with market participants about the operational plan in the coming weeks." Ministry of Finance, Government of Canada Announces Additional Support for Canadian Credit Markets 2008-090 (November 12, 2008)

First Tranche: October 10: $25 billion. Already disbursed.

Second Tranche: November 12: $50 billion.

The total is a staggering $75 billion handout to the chartered banks.

The initial $25 billion tranche has already been disbursed and nobody in Canada seems to be concerned.

The Government is Financing Its Own Indebtedness

The recipients of the bank bailout are also the creditors of the federal government. The chartered banks are the brokers of the federal public debt. They sell treasury bills and government bonds on behalf of the government. They also hold a portion of the public debt..

In a bitter irony, the banks lend money to the federal government to finance the bailout, and with the money raised through the sale of government bonds and T-Bills, the government finances, via the CHMC, the bank bailout. It is a circular process. The banks are the recipients of the bailout as well as the creditors of the State. The federal government is in a sense financing its own indebtedness.

While the Canadian bailout procedures differ from those of the US Treasury under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), they essentially serve the same purpose. Both programs contribute to bank centralization and the concentration of financial wealth.

Under TARP, some 700 billion dollars bailout money was allocated to major Wall Street banks. Canada's population is slightly less than 11 percent of that of the US. The numbers are consistent. The 75 billion dollar Canadian bailout is slightly less (numerically US dollar for Can dollar) than 11 percent of the US 700 billion bailout under TARP.

No Parliamentary Debate

The $700 billion US bank bailout under the Troubled Assets Relief Program, was the object of debate and legislation in the US Congress.

In contrast, in Canada, the granting of 75 billion dollars to Canada's chartered banks was implemented at the height of an election campaign, without duly informing the Canadian public.

Canada's media and financial press bears a responsibility in this regard. The matter was barely mentioned. It passed virtually unnoticed a few days before a federal election.

Media coverage was minimal. There was no parliamentary debate. No discussion, no debate as one would have expected from the opposition parties at the height of an election campaign as well as in its aftermath.

Nobody seemed to have noticed. Most Canadians do not know that there was a 75 billion dollar bailout of Canada's financial institutions.

The decision was casually presented as an effort "to ease the credit crunch" and encourage Canadian banks "to loosen their purse strings and extend more lending to businesses and consumers."

The impact, however, is likely to result in exactly the opposite: the centralization and concentration of financial wealth to the detriment of the real economy..

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs


Guess you didn't get the memo:

Coles: There was a 75 Billion dollar Canadian Bank Bailout.



Well I'll be damned. I was aware of the initial $25B which was a relative small drop in the bucket compared to what other countries were doing, but that additional $50B sways it to a pretty crummy deal all around.

And the least surprising thing is how Flahrety handled the whole situation. I'd expect nothing less from a guy who got his experience in the Mike Harris government.

[autosm]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
Frankly it's amazing how people believe the crap the conservatives spew. I can't help but think people are morons if they believe it was the liberal parties fault we didn't get the seat in the UN. If anything it was the fault of us supporting Israel which is a choice Stephen Harper made. Now right or wrong it doesn't matter it is still not the liberals that are to blame.

On the topic of the deficit it was no one else than Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper who spent us into such a deficit. Arguing otherwise is foolish and narrow minded. Last time Stephen Harper was asked to work with the opposition he instead chose to prorogue parliament and now you are telling me it's the oppositions fault he spent us into a retarded amount of debt?

Just to be clear I don't care who the hell gets elected as long as there is political change and well frankly the PC has been running the show here since 1971 and there are no signs of this changing anytime soon. All that means if more and more corruption as more skeletons get swept under the rug by the party in power.

The idiocracy is now... Just keep voting the same way Rutherford tells you it won't be long we will have our own balanced news up here for all the Albertans :) Fox news under the guise of the Sun and then the transition will be complete. Alberta the republican state.


The Federal Liberals were in power for much of the time since 1971? Are you confusing the PC in Alberta with the Federal conservatives?


If you live in Alberta and consider voting Liberal for federal or provincial elections. You must not be aware of the history of the liberal party in the west. They screwed over all of the western provinces with Alberta being hit the hardest.


The liberal party of Canada is one of the biggest things wrong with this country. Lets hope Michael Ignatieff never becomes Prime Minister.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by autosm
The Federal Liberals were in power for much of the time since 1971? Are you confusing the PC in Alberta with the Federal conservatives?



Just to be clear I don't care who the hell gets elected as long as there is political change and well frankly the PC has been running the show here since 1971 and there are no signs of this changing anytime soon.

I think it's amply clear which party I am talking about. FYI it doesn't matter who got elected federally when the people here always vote the same...

How is pissing away 75 Billion being conservative with your money? This so called fiscally responsible government single handedly put us in more debt than any government in Canadian history...

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2


Well I'll be damned. I was aware of the initial $25B which was a relative small drop in the bucket compared to what other countries were doing, but that additional $50B sways it to a pretty crummy deal all around.

And the least surprising thing is how Flahrety handled the whole situation. I'd expect nothing less from a guy who got his experience in the Mike Harris government.

75 billion is roughly 1/10th of 700 billion. Canada is roughly 1/10th of the US population... But our economy is smaller. So i think that actually makes us worse.

The reason that the banks didn't blow up here is because CMHC buys all of their crap off them.


Works like this:
Bank makes a bunch or mortgages and packages them up into the dreaded "Mortgage Backed Securities" or MBS.

CMHC buys the MBS off the bank for an inflated price, and by doing so assumes 100% of the risk of the mortgages, and also gets screwed on the deal.

CMHC then sells mortgage bonds to investors that pay slightly less than the mortgage maintenance fees. These mortage bonds are GOLD because there is ZERO chance o you losing your principal - Why? Because CMHC mortgage bonds are backed by the full faith of the Canadian Tax Payer.

Banks buy the mortgage bonds from CMHC and by doing so have converted a risky mortgage into a 100% guaranteed revenue stream.

Thanks Banks.

Thanks CMHC for efficiently meeting your mandate of making housing so affordable aka - artificially supporting lending to make houses way more expensive.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs


75 billion is roughly 1/10th of 700 billion. Canada is roughly 1/10th of the US population... But our economy is smaller. So i think that actually makes us worse.

Its tough to gauge just how much actually went to the US banks because of how many different allocations of money there have been. Some went directly to them, a whole bunch went to discretionary funds etc. I've seen figures that would put it closer to $2T but much of that would be allocated funds and not funds that have actually been spent.

And if we're comparing it relative to GDPs, Using the 75B and 700B figures they're also pretty much the same, but I'd still say Canada's is better only because we're in a far better position to actually get rid of our deficit, while the U.S. is pretty well fucked in that regard.

[autosm]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin



How is pissing away 75 Billion being conservative with your money? This so called fiscally responsible government single handedly put us in more debt than any government in Canadian history...



Some of that money went to pave the Deerfoot and twin the #1 highway from Lake Louise to Kamloops. I would not consider that pissing away? More like money well spent?

[DRKM]

Has everyone forgoten the most expensive set of G7 and G20 events ever? 1Billion dollars spent in the middle of a recession. That by far is enough for me to say that the 'conservatives' are as fiscally conservative as a crack head.

Not to mention the fact that harper has cut research grants but to top it off he has increased spending at religious colleges.
Conservatives canceled $152 million in science funding last year, however, true to his evangelical roots he has donated millions of taxpayers dollars to fund pet religious projects. This list is only a few that I know of :
- $4.2 Million to the Newman Theological College
- $3.2 million to Youth for Christ in Winnipeg
- $192,000 to the world of Truth Christian Center
- $495,600 to Wycliffe Bible Translators
- $198,951 to National Evangelical Spiritual Baptist Faith International Centre of Canada
- $84,110 to Eastside Church of God
- $2.9 million to Redeemer University College

In addtion, closing of 14 of the Status of Women offices across Canada and shutting down the Court Challenges program.


Or how about monitering online forums
http://www.news1130.com/news/national/article/58287--harper-government-monitoring-online-chats-about-politics


What about harpers promise to never run a deficit, or his control of the parliament media Q&A period.

I could go on but I don't feel there is a point as many conservatives just plug there ears.

[CUG]

Originally posted by DRKM


I could go on but I don't feel there is a point as many conservatives just plug there ears. The same way Chretien did while he was showing off golf balls during his testimony at his criminal fraud inquiry? Sure brah.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by CUG
The same way Chretien did while he was showing off golf balls during his testimony at his criminal fraud inquiry? Sure brah.

Which was the same way Mulroney handled his criminal investigation, OMG the Conservatives are corrupt!

[Feruk]

I used to tolerate the conservative's views towards morals as they were supposed to be fiscally conservative. Since this is no longer the case, and they've done so much I disagree with, they'll never get my vote again.

Why I won't vote Conservative:
1) Bailouts: Banks (CMHC), Cars (GM) - this is not fiscal conservativeness.
2) Stephen Harper
3) The BIGGEST reason though: Canning of freedom of speech. Any Oil Sands related speaker now has to be GOVERNMENT approved and his script has to be approved as well. There was a thread in this forum about it a few months ago. The second you fuck with freedom of speech, you lose my vote regardless of anything else.
4) Secretly passing a law around the G20 summit that allowed the police to arrest anyone who didn't ID themselves even without cause. A violation of our constitution.

I think Harper and other Conservative MPs should have to do jail time for the last two, not run out country. I'll be voting for whoever has a chance of beating them, be it Liberal or not.

[DayGlow]

Hard to pin the bailouts souly on the Conservatives, it's a minority government and the other parties were demanding them as well. Hell at the height of the recession the NDP and Liberals were complaining that the Conservatives weren't going far enough. To now turn around and lay blame for the deficit on their feet is a little disingenuous.

Also don't confuse laws passed by the Provincial Government with the Federal. The Public Works Act in Ontario is from around WWII and is a provincial law, not federal.

The whole G8/G20 costs were a huge stimulus program in itself. The money went directly back into the Toronto and surrounding area's economy. It was pretty much all human costs in hotels, service, construction and security. That money went into the pockets of working people and back into the economy. I think it was too expensive, but I do understand it's something that directly stimulated the economy vs going outside the borders to a black hole.

[dino_martini]

If the Liberal's were to legalize weed, I would vote for them. :rofl:

[Redlyne_mr2]

Harper just took it upon himself to extend the tour for another 3 years in Afghanistan.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by DayGlow
The whole G8/G20 costs were a huge stimulus program in itself. The money went directly back into the Toronto and surrounding area's economy. It was pretty much all human costs in hotels, service, construction and security. That money went into the pockets of working people and back into the economy. I think it was too expensive, but I do understand it's something that directly stimulated the economy vs going outside the borders to a black hole.

I'd maintain that using the billion dollars to build something that not only created jobs for its construction and operation, but would remain in use well after the project was completed would have been a far better use of spending under the guise of a stimulus. Public transit funding, roads, schools, a hospital etc. at least provides something tangible after its completed, nothing positive or lasting came from the G8 Summit.

A 'one and done' event that leaves no (positive) legacy and employed people for a week or so is really just a waste, especially when no valuable infrastructure was created as a result.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Harper just took it upon himself to extend the tour for another 3 years in Afghanistan.

Good; the one smart thing the Conservatives have done is keep us in Afghanistan. If you commit to something, see it through.

[ZenOps]

The two bailouts that are most prominent in Canada were the $25 and $50 billion. Its too hard to find an actual tally.

The US is somewhere around $11.6 to $20 trillion by now (the last .6 just recently) Some were bailouts, some were simple money printing, and others were trade imbalance shuffling (otherwise known as "passing the buck")

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZchK__XUF84

Liberals are protectionist east, Conservatives protectionist west, Quebecois are French protectionist, take your choice.

The Green party has a real shot at this if they retain their neutral stance for all the people who are tired of protectionism in general and would like to get to other issues - like actually making a few environmental laws (like drinking water)

Me - I'd like to think I'm Canadian protectionist. Damn the US, shut off the taps! No potash, err I mean no oil, whoops I mean no copper for you!

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by Feruk


Good; the one smart thing the Conservatives have done is keep us in Afghanistan. If you commit to something, see it through.

See what through? You can't change a country that's been at war for a lifetime.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2


I'd maintain that using the billion dollars to build something that not only created jobs for its construction and operation, but would remain in use well after the project was completed would have been a far better use of spending under the guise of a stimulus. Public transit funding, roads, schools, a hospital etc. at least provides something tangible after its completed, nothing positive or lasting came from the G8 Summit.

A 'one and done' event that leaves no (positive) legacy and employed people for a week or so is really just a waste, especially when no valuable infrastructure was created as a result.


of the 858 million the government claims the G20 summit cost, 678million was spent on police and security.

Im sure the police enjoyed the 1 billion dollars in overtime and did not think twice when they were asked to trample on peoples charter rights.

[Alpine Autowerks]

Have lived throughout the damage the Libs did to this province to fund their orwelian dream state, every Liberal cork sucker that has stood on on my front step has gotten a face full of door. I would prefer my sons bring home a boyfriend before they tell me they voted liberal.

[911fever]

Originally posted by CUG
I wouldn't EVER vote liberal in Canada. We don't have to. Voting Conservative is pretty much voting liberal anyways.

+1. The Conservative Party of Canada is definitely moderate, very little to the right.


Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Harper just took it upon himself to extend the tour for another 3 years in Afghanistan.

Good for him. Not only do the soldiers in Afghanistan support the extension for 'military trainers', not soldiers in combat (yes its a war zone and yes some will be in harms way for sure), but it's a mission they need to finish need to accomplish. As many soldiers have said, to leave now would be to give up everything fallen soldiers have died to achieve - freedom for the Afghani people, the destruction of an opppressive Taliban regime which has thousands of human rights abuses especially towards women, and finally, the establishment of a state which will not be able to launch further attacks against the West in state-sponsored terrorism. You cannot give up the good fight when the going is tough. If Poland can supply troops, so can Canada.
The mission has support even from the Liberal party, from liberal and conservative newspapers, and is well supported by the US and Canadian military:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/11/201011904741985694.html
You either believe they are doing great work there (which is what the soldiers who've done tours they say), or you think the entire mission is a failure.
Interesting stats on it:
http://www.harrisdecima.ca/news/releases/201011/966-canadians-wary-extension-afghanistan-mission

[autosm]

Originally posted by broken_legs



of the 858 million the government claims the G20 summit cost, 678million was spent on police and security.

Im sure the police enjoyed the 1 billion dollars in overtime and did not think twice when they were asked to trample on peoples charter rights.


Nothing like delivering a good ass kicking while making double time?

For the most part the ones on the receiving end got what was necessary to maintain law and order. Charter of rights ended for the violent protesters the moment the riots broke out. The way I see it.

[911fever]

Originally posted by autosm



Nothing like delivering a good ass kicking while making double time?

For the most part the ones on the receiving end got what was necessary to maintain law and order. Charter of rights ended for the violent protesters the moment the riots broke out. The way I see it.

and the way I see it too. Burning police cars and vandalizing thousands of public places, really? pathetic

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by autosm

Charter of rights ended for the violent protesters the moment the riots broke out. The way I see it.

I'm gravely concerned that you're unaware of what Charter rights were actually being trampled on. And even if the protesters were violent, it doesn't "end" their Charter rights anyway (unless you're a fan of how Trudeau handled unrest), they'd get arrested for vandalizing etc.

[DayGlow]

I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever addressed the riot act? Don't have a criminal code at hand and can't remember what section it is, but if a crowd is deemed tumultuous and the 'riot act' is read then police do have powers under the code to end the breach of peace and arrest people for merely being present in a unlawful gathering. I know the proclamation was read in Toronto before the crowd was engaged so as the law stands at the time the police were acting within their powers as laid out in the code.

[CUG]

^
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Lawful assembly becoming unlawful

(2) Persons who are lawfully assembled may become an unlawful assembly if they conduct themselves with a common purpose in a manner that would have made the assembly unlawful if they had assembled in that manner for that purpose.

Exception

(3) Persons are not unlawfully assembled by reason only that they are assembled to protect the dwelling-house of any one of them against persons who are threatening to break and enter it for the purpose of committing an indictable offence therein.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 64.

Riot
64. A riot is an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 65.

Punishment of rioter
65. Every one who takes part in a riot is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 66.

Punishment for unlawful assembly
66. Every one who is a member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Alpine Autowerks
I would prefer my sons bring home a boyfriend before they tell me they voted liberal.

:rofl:

[heavyD]

If Harper ripped his face off and revealed himself as Satan he would still be a better alternative to the Liberals. If/when the Liberals ever get control of this country Alberta is going to be in a world of hurt. They will be passing off completely unrealistic climate change/greenhouse gas emitions bills left and right that will ultimately lead to most of us having to leave the province or change careers.

[Alpine Autowerks]

If you support Liberal and their ilk (NDP + Bloc) you get bills like C-343. That piece of left-lib shit would have the parents of young offenders who are injured committing a crime eligible to a 2 year leave of absence and 1 year of EI to care for the little fuck at our expense.....seriously HOLY FAWK who thinks this is what our country stands for?????