bob4851 Says:
Dec 3, 2008 - Julian Beltrame, The Canadian Press Tsur Somerville, a business professor at the University of British Columbia, said the mortgage transfer announced by Flaherty is not a bailout since the loans are already ensured by a government agency. "If they went into default then the government would have to bail them out anyhow," he said. "What they've done is essentially replaced mortgages with cash which changes the capital requirements of the banks."
bob4851 Says:
Dec 3, 2008 - "It's a huge stretch to look at it as a bailout - it's a helping hand," said Brad Smith, a banking analyst at Blackmont Capital, a Toronto brokerage. "He said the government stands to make a small profit from the mortgages because government borrowing costs are lower than what the assets will yield in interest." FlahertyWe are borrowing the money for an investment my friend.Hey, even the Liberals think it's the right move (but they said it was already in their plan) GO HARPER
oscarfellini Says:
Dec 3, 2008 - At no point do I call it a bailout. Nor do I say it is intrinsically a bad thing. What urks me is Harper and Flaherty are playing with money, regardless of the risk, that is ours. Why not admit it? Because to do so, to admit the move is underpinned with our tax dollars is politically dangerous. Too honest. It is this sort of double talk, this cynical and arrogant thinking that has many people upset. Thanks for you comment.
longhairred Says:
Dec 3, 2008 - Well said.