[Ether_Snake]

How much equity were you hoping to accumulate in 5 years? How much profit in reselling? Remember closing costs on both sides. Even without a bubble burst, I'm not sure you're likely to be materially better off buying versus renting. If you have a 25% downpayment (I'm guessing somewhere between 50k and 100k), why not invest it in something moderately high yield? Your interest might pay your rent.

Such as?

5 years is the idea we have to sell the place and then move into something bigger that we can really start a family in. I don't know how much of a goal we have for the increased value, but obviously it would be as much as possible and definitely not at or below what we bought it for. The place we want is large enough that we could use one of the rooms as a baby room for at least a year (to three-ish) if we needed to, but it's not really suited for a young child beyond that. So even if we had a kid around the 5 year mark and stayed for a while after that, that'd still top us out at around 8 years there. Starting from around mid-2014 (so to 2022-ish), would that likely be long enough to make a positive return on the place? I wouldn't know much about investing, and haven't had the greatest of luck with it in my initial dabblings. I don't know what would possibly give a return of over $1,000-1,500+/month. A year, but not every month.

Anyone planning to sell five years after buying is gambling. You might end up buying at the top in 2013, then things fall for the next few years.

[Presco]

Anyone planning to sell five years after buying is gambling. You might end up buying at the top in 2013, then things fall for the next few years.

Absolutely.

Even assuming the prices continue to appreciate, you will likely lose money with a 5 year time frame. Plug your assumed numbers into this calculator to see the break even point. Keep in mind that interest rates will likely be hiked soon.

http://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html

Rent for those 5 years and reinvest the money. Buy when you're ready to treat a house as a place to live and not as an investment, especially when most signs point to this being the top of the market in the major Canadian cities. After 5 years the amount of money you'd owe on a mortgage would be scarily similar to the amount of money you initially owed.

That's not to say that there's a chance this entire post is wrong. There might still be money to be made, especially if you have 25% down and extend your horizon to 8 years. Lots of people have made a lot money in Canadian real estate these last couple of years. If I was in a position to buy 5 years ago I would have jumped at the opportunity. We're in a position to buy now but don't plan on doing so for a while. Prices are one concern, but flexibility is another.

[Zips]

Absolutely. Even assuming the prices continue to appreciate, you will likely lose money with a 5 year time frame. Plug your assumed numbers into this calculator to see the break even point. Keep in mind that interest rates will likely be hiked soon. http://michaelbluejay.com/house/rentvsbuy.html Rent for those 5 years and reinvest the money. Buy when you're ready to treat a house as a place to live and not as an investment, especially when most signs point to this being the top of the market in the major Canadian cities. After 5 years the amount of money you'd owe on a mortgage would be scarily similar to the amount of money you initially owed. That's not to say that there's a chance this entire post is wrong. There might still be money to be made, especially if you have 25% down and extend your horizon to 8 years. Lots of people have made a lot money in Canadian real estate these last couple of years. If I was in a position to buy 5 years ago I would have jumped at the opportunity. We're in a position to buy now but don't plan on doing so for a while. Prices are one concern, but flexibility is another.

Assuming that that calculator is reliable/accurate, and trying to get the numbers as close as possible (given that it doesn't allow for setting the downpayment at 25%, or let me put in my own number for it when I pick 'other'), there doesn't seem that big a difference in costs over time between buying vs. renting.

It edges towards buying or renting basically entirely upon what % return on investments or real estate appreciation I set it to. Neither of us are skilled with investments so I wouldn't expect to be able to get more than 3%-ish return on those overall. Setting it to that, and a level of rent in line with living downtown/close to it, makes the calculator say buying is better. But again, that's dependent on the property having a value that appreciates by an average of at least 3%.

If the market is so supposedly close to popping I'd want to wait until after it does, but I don't know when that will be. My girlfriend and I still want the place we've found too, so that's another consideration...though maybe we'd be able to buy one at the same building shortly after it finishes for cheaper than now if the market pops by then.

[gabbo]

This shit is scary. At every turn Harper keeps cutting out anyone or anything that can or could possibly keep an eye on him or the what his government does. Kill the census, slash CBC, slash stats can, cut off all information from the party, don't let the public know anything... Fucking useless Canadians who are too damned lazy to spend a moment to track the groups of people who run their damn lives are to blame for situations like this. Not to mention a broken electoral system that isn't even democratic at its heart. Yarg!

It helps that the government has been able to turn people against the public service even more than usual, so many don't realize they're applauding for a loss of services they rely on.

[BladeWorker]

It helps that the government has been able to turn people against the public service even more than usual, so many don't realize they're applauding for a loss of services they rely on.

Well, anti-union sentiment has been building for years, and comes to a head in economic times like these, where prices are high, wages/salaries don't keep up, and job security in the private sector is at an all time low. The prospect of value for money is a huge sensitivity, and there's a heightened sensitivity to fairness issues.

In the meantime, it is broadly perceived that union contracts have wage increases set in stone and defined benefit pension plans indexed to inflation that guarantee a standard of living for public sector workers that the remaining 65-70% of the population feels as though they can only dream of.

So...that's a long-winded way of saying that it's not just the Conservatives who have been turning public opinion against unions - the coverage of union/government contract negotiations, and the general public opinion environment have been doing that for at least a generation.

[gabbo]

Well, anti-union sentiment has been building for years, and comes to a head in economic times like these, where prices are high, wages/salaries don't keep up, and job security in the private sector is at an all time low. The prospect of value for money is a huge sensitivity, and there's a heightened sensitivity to fairness issues. In the meantime, it is broadly perceived that union contracts have wage increases set in stone and defined benefit pension plans indexed to inflation that guarantee a standard of living for public sector workers that the remaining 65-70% of the population feels as though they can only dream of. So...that's a long-winded way of saying that it's not just the Conservatives who have been turning public opinion against unions - the coverage of union/government contract negotiations, and the general public opinion environment have been doing that for at least a generation.

I know, there's been anti-union sentiment building since the late 70's early 80's because of some perceived slight to non-unionized work. As if It's somehow public unions fault the private sector is out for profit at the expense of the work force.
People shouldn't be trying to lower standards all around, that's my issue. Blaa blaa you don't have X days off with Y pension benefits, fight for it, don't get vitriolic because your mailman has them.

[BladeWorker]

I know, there's been anti-union sentiment building since the late 70's early 80's because of some perceived slight to non-unionized work. As if It's somehow public unions fault the private sector is out for profit at the expense of the work force. People shouldn't be trying to lower standards all around, that's my issue. Blaa blaa you don't have X days off with Y pension benefits, fight for it, don't get vitriolic because your mailman has them.

I'm not sure it's lower standards that people are going for, so much as sustainability. Once upon a time, the initial selling proposition of public versus private sector was:

Private sector: greater risk in terms of job security and retirement benefits, greater rewards in terms of wages.

Public sector: lower risk with enhanced job security and retirement benefits, lower short-term rewards in terms of wages.

And this no longer applies.

Governments cannot afford to hire unionized workers in permanent positions because it means that they pay as much in benefits as they would in salary. The mailman, for example, may "earn" 50K a year, but he costs the government nearly $100,000 annually, because of the additional benefits, overtime pay, and pension contributions that the government pays as a function of what a permanent employee will earn. So they hire contract workers, to whom they don't have to offer benefits or job security, in order that a $50,000 employee only costs $50,000, for the duration of their contract. Temporary workers are offered some benefits, but can be released and re-hired, and accordingly not paid or paid, based on "seasonal" need.

That said, among the entrenched, public-sector wages have crept up to the point where, in some parts, they match and may exceed what equivalent posts would earn in the private-sector; private-sector wages have not increased to match cost of living. So, private sector workers are assuming more risk without the rewards that used to apply. In fairness, targeting frontline public-sector and unionized workers alone for job cuts is unfair; in some cases, chopping thousands of jobs at a time puts pension benefits at immediate risk, which poses greater problems for government then having people employed in the first place.

Back on track - Many also raise the point that the pensions of public sector pensions are partially subsidized - in some cases, upwards of 50-60% - by government revenues, aka tax dollars. It's an unsustainable model as long as we have such other services as public health care, and as we saw with such private organizations like Nortel, when things go bad, they go *really* bad, and billions of dollars that would otherwise have paid for cardiac bypasses are going to back up workers' retirement plans. Workers who, some argue, collect pension benefits at the same time as they collect further government paycheques as they go back to work as consultants. Should people who work get paid for it? Certainly. Once they earn their wages, do we have any right to criticize how they spend it? Likely not. The question that most people struggle with is whether they should be paid for work at the same time as they are paid to be retired.

The typical response is "bitch, bitch, bitch, go get a job in the public sector if you don't like it", but there is so much competition for any job - let alone PS jobs that are usually filled before they're posted - that said attitude is no longer a valid response. And, for private sector workers to attempt to bargain for the benefits they want? Most of us would be fired. No income? No tax revenues. No tax revenues? Further strain on an already burdened budget. The solution isn't for private-sector workers to bind together and collectively bargain, as we've seen, this might well exacerbate the problem.

Ultimately, if we promise (private or public-sector) workers something, we as a society should be willing to deliver; that said, if the model under which we're currently operating is unsustainable, everyone, private and public, has to be willing to make concessions so we all avoid bankruptcy. Wage freezes are only part of the solution; long term pension reform (conversion to defined-contribution plans, for starters, and broader public reforms to such nets as CPP) is another part. Attitudes on all sides, though, are perhaps the biggest part.

But changing attitudes is a long-term, thankless project. Chretien's Liberals learned that lesson in the early 90s, changing the focus from their (broken) promise to eliminate the GST to heightening consciousness and concern over the public debt.

So in the meantime, it's the public sector unions' fault that the government can't afford to govern.

[lacinius]

Oh good... another Omnibus bill... :\

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...nt-has-fallen/

Bill C-38, introduced in the House last week, calls itself, innocuously, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.” The bill does implement certain budget provisions, it is true: for example, the controversial changes to Old Age Security. But “and other measures” rather understates matters — to understate the matter. The bill runs to more than 420 pages. It amends some 60 different acts, repeals half a dozen, and adds three more, including a completely rewritten Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It ranges far beyond the traditional budget concerns of taxing and spending, making changes in policy across a number of fields from immigration (among other changes, it erases at a stroke the entire backlog of applications under the skilled worker program), to telecommunications (opening the door, slightly, to foreign ownership), to land codes on native reservations. The environmental chapters are the most extraordinary. Along with the new Act, they give cabinet broader power to override decisions of the National Energy Board, shorten the list of protected species, and abolish the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act — among “other measures.” For much of this the first public notice was its inclusion in the bill. So this is not remotely a budget bill, despite its name. It is what is known as an omnibus bill. If you want to know how far Parliament has fallen, how little real oversight it now exercises over government, this should give you a clue.

Reminds me of the practice of "bill stuffing" used so often in the US.


**edit to add more of what's in the bill via the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...niversary.html

The most contentious change replaces the entire Environmental Assessment Act, giving the federal cabinet a virtual override in approving major oil and gas pipelines. It imposes time limits on public hearings and reviews involving the environment, nuclear safety and major energy projects. The bill includes proposed changes to the Immigration Act that would effectively throw out the applications of more than 300,000 foreign workers waiting to get into Canada for more than four years. It eliminates the key watchdog of the country’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. And it proposes significant changes to the Fisheries Act, a move already making waves in that industry. Good news: The budget bill cancels Harper's utterly failed Public Appointments Commission that cost taxpayers over $4 million without ever making a single appointment to anything.

...lumping it all into a bill needed to implement budget measures has the effect of guaranteeing everything will be passed next month before MPs leave for their summer holidays.

[dragonfart28]

Apparently Hitler got the memo about Harper invoking his name, rofl

[IISANDERII]

So I went to a PC fundraiser hosted by Tim Hudak last night and was just stunned to hear an auditorium full of clapping for his nonsensical double talk. The province is in massive debt so you want to lower taxes?? Ok, I get that this is the way the rightwing goes but does the entire room have blinders on? Or are they in on it and just want to get in, get off and get out?
A close friend of mine is a business owner who's struggling so I get that he votes Conservative but some of these people last night had $3,000 suits and $300,000 cars. They aren't struggling so I don't see their need to turn this country more into the United States and less like the social democracies that have a much higher quality of life.

[Zombie James]

The new $20 bill.

[Vamphuntr]

The new $20 bill.

Surprise! There's her Majesty's face on it again!

I find it a bit awkward that this governement is cutting left and right in spendings and yet funded a flashy video to unveil a 20$ bill.

[maharg]

The video probably cost in the thousands of dollars to produce, and informing people on how to use security features in bank notes is kind of essential. Also it was probably the BoC that decided to allocate resources to it.

Were you expecting the Queen not to be on it? She is our head of state. Would be rather odd to not have her there. :P

[Fuzzy]

I can't remember if it was in this thread or the Toronto thread but I'll say it again, I hate the new $50 bills. For people like me who use a money fold without a clip they're a pain in the ass. I'll probably have to start using a clip once I start getting the new $20 bills.

[crazy monkey]

The video probably cost in the thousands of dollars to produce, and informing people on how to use security features in bank notes is kind of essential. Also it was probably the BoC that decided to allocate resources to it. Were you expecting the Queen not to be on it? She is our head of state. Would be rather odd to not have her there. :P

I hope after her we get rid of the monarchy. I mean seriously we will have that kid or Charles as hear of Canada? We need to move on.

[Vamphuntr]

The video probably cost in the thousands of dollars to produce, and informing people on how to use security features in bank notes is kind of essential. Also it was probably the BoC that decided to allocate resources to it. Were you expecting the Queen not to be on it? She is our head of state. Would be rather odd to not have her there. :P

Well you could have simply called reporters from newspaper and tv station and explain it to them. It's not like it would be much worse than cutting in food inspection or custom officers. But yeah the Bank of Canada probably footed part of the bill or the whole bill.

As for the Queen she only has a symbolic role anyway. It's not like there isn't any great Canadians that contributed to our country.

[Hey You]

I hope after her we get rid of the monarchy. I mean seriously we will have that kid or Charles as hear of Canada? We need to move on.

This.

Sadly it's not a big deal/issue with most, so I don't see this changing anytime soon, if ever :/

[crazy monkey]

This. Sadly it's not a big deal/issue with most, so I don't see this changing anytime soon, if ever :/

I can not understand this mentality either. It is freaking our country people should have issue about this. I mean we still sing god save our queen. Some time I feel like I am the only one around who actually cares about this issue even a bit.

[maharg]

Well you could have simply called reporters from newspaper and tv station and explain it to them. It's not like it would be much worse than cutting in food inspection or custom officers. But yeah the Bank of Canada probably footed part of the bill or the whole bill. As for the Queen she only has a symbolic role anyway. It's not like there isn't any great Canadians that contributed to our country.

Would you rather have Harper as our head of state? Give him some presidential powers perhaps? Maybe build him a palace.

Seriously, I frankly don't get why people get such a bug up their ass about the role of the monarchy in our system. We have an *advantage* in having an arms length, non-partisan, head of state with a largely ceremonial role. And because the brits foot the bill for her we probably have one of the cheapest heads of state in the world.

I'm not against patriating the head of state, but I'd much rather it be maintained as a non-partisan role. And politically I just don't see that happening. There's too much potential power in a partisan head of state to give up. So I'm perfectly happy the way it is.

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

The video probably cost in the thousands of dollars to produce, and informing people on how to use security features in bank notes is kind of essential. Also it was probably the BoC that decided to allocate resources to it. Were you expecting the Queen not to be on it? She is our head of state. Would be rather odd to not have her there. :P

Interesting factoid for you, Scottish notes don't have the Queen on them, and they're British pounds.

[Zombie James]

Seriously, I frankly don't get why people get such a bug up their ass about the role of the monarchy in our system. We have an *advantage* in having an arms length, non-partisan, head of state with a largely ceremonial role.

This is the only part I don't like.

[maharg]

Interesting factoid for you, Scottish notes don't have the Queen on them, and they're British pounds.

The monarchy is just a liiiiiiittle bit (by which I mean a lot) less popular in Scotland than here.

This is the only part I don't like.

Why? What would you have our head of state do that they do not currently do or is not currently well served by either the head of government (the PM) or our justice system?

In countries where the head of state and the head of government are one role (the US), they have immense powers allocated to them. In countries where they are separate but both hold active powers, there tend to be massive power struggles between the two as they focus on completely different arenas and can't always both get what they want.

We have a head of state, who represents Canada as a nation ceremonially and who's responsibility is to maintain tradition, and we have a head of government who's responsibility is to maintain the day to day aspects of governance. I like it this way.

[Vamphuntr]

Would you rather have Harper as our head of state? Give him some presidential powers perhaps? Maybe build him a palace. Seriously, I frankly don't get why people get such a bug up their ass about the role of the monarchy in our system. We have an *advantage* in having an arms length, non-partisan, head of state with a largely ceremonial role. And because the brits foot the bill for her we probably have one of the cheapest heads of state in the world. I'm not against patriating the head of state, but I'd much rather it be maintained as a non-partisan role. And politically I just don't see that happening. There's too much potential power in a partisan head of state to give up. So I'm perfectly happy the way it is.

I do agree on the point that giving all that power to the prime minister would be a mistake but that wasn't what I was debating at all. Do I think giving Harper supreme power over our parliament and our constitution a mistake? Of course, I do.

My concern is that the symbolic figures that hold these power is not really living in our country or actively taking part in it. And we do have to foot the bill for her indirectly. We pay for the GG which is her representative. We also pay millions to welcome her family when they are on a trip in the country.

Moreover, I don't really buy the non-partisan argument. It's often the GG that is called to make decisions and the government "recommends" (read chooses) him to the Queen. I totally don't expect him to be non partisan and objective. I really don't think Harper would have selected someone that would abandon him during an another emergency shut down of the Parliament because the oppostion wants to overthrow is government.

I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy precludes us from coming up with an alternate method to keep these power split or find a way to gives the president full power but with a good method to overthrow his decision in case of abuse.

[maharg]

I do agree on the point that giving all that power to the prime minister would be a mistake but that wasn't what I was debating at all. Do I think giving Harper supreme power over our parliament and our constitution a mistake? Of course, I do. My concern is that the symbolic figures that hold these power is not really living in our country or actively taking part in it. And we do have to foot the bill for her indirectly. We pay for the GG which is her representative. We also pay millions to welcome her family when they are on a trip in the country. Moreover, I don't really buy the non-partisan argument. It's often the GG that is called to make decisions and the government "recommends" (read chooses) him to the Queen. I totally don't expect him to be non partisan and objective. I really don't think Harper would have selected someone that would abandon him during an another emergency shut down of the Parliament because the oppostion wants to overthrow is government. I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy precludes us from coming up with an alternate method to keep these power split or find a way to gives the president full power but with a good method to overthrow his decision in case of abuse.

The non-partisan nature of the GG comes from the fact that it is a non-elective position with a fixed term and a single term limit. There is nothing the selected person can do to have a second term, and there is nothing the PM can do to punish him for what he does. Will a PM choose a GG they think will back them up? Of course. Do they have any way of forcing them to once they take office? Not at all.

Also, the GG, like the queen, holds only reserve powers. They can't just go and do things willy nilly to back up the PM that appointed them, because they quite simply don't have the power to do that. Unless in the case of great emergency, to the point that the people as a whole would support an unelected official taking action. A GG who acted without that kind of support would be in dire straights indeed, and would cause a full on collapse in the constitutional order of this country.

And actually, Harper has probably done more to make the position of GG non-partisan than any PM before him. He didn't just pick someone, he formed a committee to recommend someone that had people from a fairly broad spectrum of political life. And he chose someone with a really strong background. I should point out, he chose a friend of Pierre Trudeau's, no less.

The GG is, by tradition, an apolitical appointee. And while I don't think Harper's traditionalism is entirely pure in motivation, in this appointment I really see no fault to it.

[gabbo]

This is the only part I don't like.

What would you prefer they do?

[Ether_Snake]

So I went to a PC fundraiser hosted by Tim Hudak last night and was just stunned to hear an auditorium full of clapping for his nonsensical double talk. The province is in massive debt so you want to lower taxes?? Ok, I get that this is the way the rightwing goes but does the entire room have blinders on? Or are they in on it and just want to get in, get off and get out? A close friend of mine is a business owner who's struggling so I get that he votes Conservative but some of these people last night had $3,000 suits and $300,000 cars. They aren't struggling so I don't see their need to turn this country more into the United States and less like the social democracies that have a much higher quality of life.

Cause the Conservatives use dirty financing tactics and attack tactics and all sort of illegal shit. Scums. They probably even spy on Facebook pages of their opponents, draw up lists of names of everyone and who they support, that kind of batshit crazy shit.

[BladeWorker]

Cause the Conservatives use dirty financing tactics and attack tactics and all sort of illegal shit. Scums.

There's little incentive for truly illegal shit. Unethical, perhaps. Untoward, likely. But illegal shit is more trouble than it's worth.

They probably even spy on Facebook pages of their opponents, draw up lists of names of everyone and who they support, that kind of batshit crazy shit.

The term is opposition research, and every party does it. There's no "probably" about it.

Back to the Timmy Dinner, they only let people in if they think they won't cause trouble, will clap when they're supposed to, yadda yadda yadda. There are organizations who have been invited, have bought a table (for however many thousands of dollars) and then called personally to say that they won't be allowed anywhere near the room.

And not refunded their money, btw.

[Ether_Snake]

The Conservatives no longer consider Radio-Canada's journalists as journalists, they are now: "government employees".

http://translate.google.com/translat...e-syndicat.php

The imposition of a new code of conduct for employees of the CBC could turn journalists into spokesman for Conservative ministers, fears the Communications Workers of Radio-Canada (CISC) [...] The president denounces that senior management of the CBC requires employees the equivalent of an "oath of allegiance" to the Harper government ministers, as well as to federal officials. Changes were made to the Code of Conduct which governs the practice of employees of Radio-Canada on April 2. The previous code was dated November 2006. Among the irritants perceived by the Union, the requirement that employees "help the ministers to account to the Parliament and to Canadians." [...] Could the overspending of the Conservative minister Bev Oda, in London, have been denounced by Radio-Canada under the new code? asked Mr. Levasseur "It really is not certain, he says. I do not think you can say that it "helps" the minister." Also, the application of Privacy Act officials Whistleblower appends the status of "fonctionnaire" (the equivalent of federal worker or government worker in the US) to journalists, regardless of their obligation of professional independence, says Levasseur. He said the contents of the new code was approved by the board and its president, Hubert Lacroix, who meets regularly and privately the Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore says Mr. Levasseur. [...] As the previous code of conduct, warns that the new employee who does not comply "may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate dismissal." [...] it is stated that "employees of CBC / Radio-Canada recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament and, therefore, to the Canadian people." It states that employees must comply with laws, policies and guidelines "in a way that appears and is non-partisan and impartial." These requirements apply to news shows as well as variety shows like "Tout le monde en parle" (a TV talk show which usually covers politics, society, media, etc., which is highly watched and often a platform of political and social discussions among celebrities, politicians, ministers, etc.) or "Et Dieux créa Laflaque" (a political critical/satirical CG animated show with CG impersonations of politicians like Harper, Duceppe, etc.), says Mr. Levasseur. Each year, all employees must sign a copy of the code of conduct and submit it to their manager to confirm that they have "read and understood" the document. CISC is urging its members not to sign the new code before its representatives know more about its implications.

[DreamMachine]

Opposition fumes as Tories limit debate on sweeping budget bill

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2421287/

For instance, one part of the budget bill replaces “subsections 27(2) and (3)” of the Employment Insurance Act. As a result, the act would no longer include lines that allow EI recipients to turn down an available job if it is not in the claimant’s usual occupation, is at a lower rate of pay or involves “conditions less favourable than those... recognized by good employers.”

We are getting dangerously close to some serious problems. This is starting to really worry me.

[DreamMachine]

[QUOTE=Ether_Snake;37539144]The Conservatives no longer consider Radio-Canada's journalists as journalists, they are now: "government employees".

That is beyond scary. It truly does seem he wants to be dictator.

[IISANDERII]

Opposition fumes as Tories limit debate on sweeping budget bill http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2421287/ We are getting dangerously close to some serious problems. This is starting to really worry me.

The Conservatives no longer consider Radio-Canada's journalists as journalists, they are now: "government employees". http://translate.google.com/translat...e-syndicat.php

This is fucking outrageous. They've seized control and now they're going to consolidate their power and drive our standard of living off a cliff.
Canadian-flag-with-Swastika-in-center.jpg

[Ether_Snake]

Don't forget the Holy-shit-I-thought-it-was-The-Onion ""Government of Canada" renamed to "Harper Government""

[gabbo]

The Conservatives no longer consider Radio-Canada's journalists as journalists, they are now: "government employees". That is beyond scary. It truly does seem he wants to be dictator.

I hope all of the CBC calls them on this nonsense. Take it to the airwaves and let us hear about it
Sadly too many Canadians don't give a damn.

[Firestorm]

The Conservatives no longer consider Radio-Canada's journalists as journalists, they are now: "government employees". http://translate.google.com/translat...e-syndicat.php

what what what what what

Is there an English source for this somewhere I can link friends to?

[Fuzzy]

Opposition fumes as Tories limit debate on sweeping budget bill http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2421287/ We are getting dangerously close to some serious problems. This is starting to really worry me.

I look forward to the $15/hr skilled labour jobs flooding the EI database. There's already some in the $18/hr range on there.

[Ether_Snake]

what what what what what Is there an English source for this somewhere I can link friends to?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../19701916.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01...code-offensive

It omits a lot of important info.

[gabbo]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics.../19701916.html http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/01...code-offensive It omits a lot of important info.

I think the conservative history of the Sun (and the paper it replaced), as well as the use of this picture: should tell you more than enough about where the Sun stand on this particular issue. Journalistic integrity is not something they care much about.

[IISANDERII]

I've always seen The Sun as Fox News' Canadian counterpart.

[dragonfart28]

Surprised no one has brought up the Ford-Star thing yet in this thread.

[gabbo]

Surprised no one has brought up the Ford-Star thing yet in this thread.

If he stops talking to the media altogether, it will only hurt himself.
I see no problem here.

[Fuzzy]

Surprised no one has brought up the Ford-Star thing yet in this thread.

We're just keeping it in the Toronto thread.

[DreamMachine]

Thought this was so aptly true

[Crazymoogle]

Thought this was so aptly true

This is the issue that's really got me angry. If the extent of the Globe and Mail story on this is true, basically the entire west coast video game industry needs to close up shop, because if you lose your job (not unusual) you're going to have to start looking for a job at 7-11.

[Ether_Snake]

With every step the Conservatives take, Quebec becomes more likely to separate. In a few years, even francophone federalists will want out.

[krae_man]

This should be interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...mpetition.html

I don't get this however:

For retailers to have the right to pick and choose which credit cards they accept from within the same brand name. That would allow them to accept the lower-fee Capital One Cash Back Gold MasterCard, for example, but refuse the higher-fee WestJet RBC World MasterCard.

One is 1.25% cashback, the other is 1.5% cashback only at Westjet. There's no reason for them to have different merchant fees when the rewards are pretty much exactly the same. The westjet one even has a $80/year annual fee.

[Stumpokapow]

I don't get this however: One is 1.25% cashback, the other is 1.5% cashback only at Westjet. How There's no reason for them to have different merchant fees when the rewards are pretty much exactly the same. The westjet one even has a $80/year annual fee.

Well the line makes it sound like they currently do have different merchant fees even if they shouldn't, and I guess retailers can't refuse them without giving up other Mastercards/Visas? I use the RICH DUDE Capital One travel card ($120 annual fee, 2% cashback on everything with no cap, price protection, automatic warranty doubling, etc) so I'm guessing I'm really putting the screws to merchants.

[bloodydrake]

This is the issue that's really got me angry. If the extent of the Globe and Mail story on this is true, basically the entire west coast video game industry needs to close up shop, because if you lose your job (not unusual) you're going to have to start looking for a job at 7-11.

So you object to not being able to get EI while turning down paying jobs you don't like?

I get objecting to a lot of what the Conservatives are doing..but this isn't one of them.
A large percentage of Canadians aren't eligible for EI due to existing rules.

The loopholes for seasonal workers, and by your comment software developers, need to be closed.

I'm fine with people using EI till they get another job..not as publicly funded way to not take jobs you don't like.

I'll never shed a tear for anyone that refuses to take an 18$/Hr. job temporarily and earn a living while waiting for a better opportunity to arise.

Take the job..hell take two of them and work towards something better. If you don't like the fact you get laid off all the time after projects are finished..change your profession.

I know too many people that are Bricklayers and roofers, that pull this shit ever year they make a fuckton of cash till winter then sit on EI till the weather gets better..its bullshit Canadian's shouldn't have to pay for.

[ghostmind]

The EI Ski community will be devastated.

[krae_man]

Well the line makes it sound like they currently do have different merchant fees even if they shouldn't, and I guess retailers can't refuse them without giving up other Mastercards/Visas? I use the RICH DUDE Capital One travel card ($120 annual fee, 2% cashback on everything with no cap, price protection, automatic warranty doubling, etc) so I'm guessing I'm really putting the screws to merchants.

2% cashback? definitely.

[maharg]

So you object to not being able to get EI while turning down paying jobs you don't like? I get objecting to a lot of what the Conservatives are doing..but this isn't one of them. A large percentage of Canadians aren't eligible for EI due to existing rules. The loopholes for seasonal workers, and by your comment software developers, need to be closed. I'm fine with people using EI till they get another job..not as publicly funded way to not take jobs you don't like. I'll never shed a tear for anyone that refuses to take an 18$/Hr. job temporarily and earn a living while waiting for a better opportunity to arise. Take the job..hell take two of them and work towards something better. If you don't like the fact you get laid off all the time after projects are finished..change your profession. I know too many people that are Bricklayers and roofers, that pull this shit ever year they make a fuckton of cash till winter then sit on EI till the weather gets better..its bullshit Canadian's shouldn't have to pay for.

You realize that once you take another job the clock resets on your EI, right? As does your maximum premium amount. Also it's a bit hard to look for comparable work when you're working two jobs at a 7-11 and a grocery store.