Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Globe and Mail said:
Ottawa?s new mortgage rules take aim at ?pockets of risk? in housing market

The Liberal government is overhauling the rules governing the mortgage industry in a bid to target what it said were ?pockets of risk? in the housing market.

The three-pronged approach includes doubling the minimum down payment for some home buyers, increasing the fees charged to lenders that securitize government-backed mortgages, and proposed changes that could require lenders to hold more capital against some insured loans in order to curb mortgage fraud and to slow rising levels of household debt.

Taken together, the new rules represent the most sweeping changes to the housing market since 2012, when the previous Conservative government last moved to tighten mortgage lending requirements, and should restrict access to new mortgage financing next year, industry watchers say.

However, unlike past changes that have been aimed at the entire Canadian housing sector, the Liberal government said the new rules, which affect higher-priced properties, are mainly targeted at the most expensive markets, particularly Toronto and Vancouver.

?This is going to help create stability for the overall market by targeting pockets of risk,? Finance Minister Bill Morneau told a press conference in Ottawa, adding the government expects the changes to affect just 1 per cent of the market or less.

?We?re not talking about bubbles here. We are talking about ensuring that Canadians take the right approach to investing in a home,? Mr. Morneau said.

The most conspicuous change is doubling the minimum down payment for insured mortgages to 10 per cent from 5 per cent for the portion of a home?s value from $500,000 to $1-million.

The changes will take effect on Feb. 15, 2016. Down payment rules for mortgages on properties selling for less than $500,000 will be unchanged. Ottawa had already restricted mortgage insurance to homes valued at less than $1-million, and the new rules leave the minimum down payment for more expensive homes unchanged at 20 per cent.

A more significant issue for the mortgage industry is the letter issued Friday by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The regulator is looking to change rules governing how much capital lenders must hold against insured mortgages to address concerns about household debt and mortgage fraud.

Current rules allow lenders to hold very little capital against insured mortgages, essentially considering them to be risk-free because they are fully backed by a government guarantee.

OSFI said it was considering requiring lenders to hold more capital when there are concerns about income-verification documents, a move that comes after The Globe and Mail highlighted the problems with some borrowers who had faked employment letters and bank statements to qualify for insured mortgages.

The announcement could be seen as ?an ?admission? that Canadian housing prices and mortgage underwriting standards have become more of a concern for Canadian regulatory authorities,? Royal Bank of Canada analyst Darko Mihelic said in a research note.

OSFI also proposed rules that would tie lenders? capital requirements to changes in local home prices as well as the amount of debt borrowers are taking on, relative to their income. The regulator said it is only consulting on possible changes, which likely wouldn?t take effect until 2017.

The third set of changes came from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., which announced it was raising limits on its government-insured, mortgage-backed securities program to $105-billion in 2016 from $80-billion this year. The housing regulator said it would also increase the amount individual lenders could access under the program, but would increase fees for institutions that went over their annual allotment, a move it said was designed to reduce the industry?s reliance on government-sponsored mortgage securities and encourage more private-market funding sources.

Toronto-Dominion Bank chief executive officer Bharat Masrani said the new rules should help strengthen Canada?s housing market. ?Generally, I believe that stronger underwriting rules that apply universally to the whole industry are a good thing,? he said in an interview. ?The lessons learned from other countries is that the housing market is where certain dislocations can occur.?

The new rules will likely slow the pace of mortgage growth next year, which had been increasing in the face of the Bank of Canada?s interest rate cuts, although realtors said it will likely boost home sales in the near future as buyers rush into the market ahead of the changes in February.

?Certainly, I think it will give an extra incentive even if we get snow and have worse winter conditions, it will create some more sales in January and February for sure,? said Toronto-area Re/Max broker Cameron Forbes.

Others warned that the rules could have unintended consequences for Ottawa. CIBC economist Benjamin Tal estimates the increased down payment requirements will affect just 5 per cent of new sales in Toronto and 2.5 per cent in Vancouver, compared with as much as 10 per cent in Calgary.

The restrictions could also prompt more buyers to borrow for a down payment, pushing more people toward the unregulated private mortgage market or encouraging them to lean on family members for help. Several observers also said the new rules are aimed mainly at local buyers and will do little to curb speculation by international investors.

?I think more young people will have to maybe approach the bank of mom and dad to beef up their down payment,? said Dianne Usher, vice-president and broker at Royal LePage Johnston and Daniel. She estimates that as many as 20 to 30 per cent of home buyers in that price range in Toronto contribute only the minimum 5 per cent down payment.

?Is this the right time to make it more difficult for first-time home buyers in a down market?? Bob Dhillon, a CMHC board member and founder of Western Canada rental apartment company Mainstreet Equity, asked in an interview prior to the government?s announcement. ?That?s going to cause the price to deflate and there to be no equity for the first-time home buyers who have [already] paid inflated prices.?
This is a long overdue move and I applaud whoever decided it needed to be done, as we have to be protected against ourselves and overextension of our financial well-being.

But let us not kid ourselves. It will not have ANY effect on the housing situation in Toronto and Vancouver. There is only one way to actually control the housing situation in a fair manner, even if most people are afraid to discuss it.

New law: no Canadian passport = no right to property ownership. This is not racist, because it does not discriminate against minorities living in Canada with citizenship. It is not xenophobic either because it doesn't tell new immigrants or refugees we don't want them, most of whom cannot afford to plunk down large amounts of money for a home right away, as they will most likely be renting.

It prevents overseas buyers who only view Canadian property as a Swiss Bank account. Buyers who never actually come here, or who transplant their spouse/mother/school-age children to reside in the place and take advantage of welfare benefits they do not actually merit.

It would send the following messages:

1) Canada is not for sale.
2) We welcome everyone to our country, but you are expected to demonstrate your commitment to this country by going through the slow process of citizenship (and renunciation of previous status) before getting a Canadian passport and a right to property. Therefore, ensuring these people contribute to Canadian society by putting down local roots, and paying income taxes, and eventually property taxes.
 
I think (hope) that Trump simply meant restricting travel to/from countries such as Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. But then again he's crazy enough to suggest DNA testing for the muslim gene or something :lol:
Trump was pretty fucking clear. Ban all Muslims from entering the country. Even American Muslims who go abroad can't come back. Fucking disgusting xenophobic fascist bullshit.

Not like the rest of the GOP field is any better. Paul's the one who wanted to bar middle easterners. Bush and IIRC Cruz would only let in Christians.

But none of them have the sheer giving-zero-fucks-ness of Trump. He's swapped the GOP's tried and true dog whistle with a bullhorn. He's the candidate the base has been getting primed for for decades. No wonder they love him.

Trump was asked and his response was simply "Ask them, are you Muslim"? He may want them wired to a lie detector the next time if talks about it.
That's symptomatic of the whole GOP field. No actual policy (not ones that meet their claims anyway). No depth. Just bluster.
 
I know the subject has been discussed before, and maybe there was a thread too. But tonight driving from Tampa to Orlando, which I usually do, I missed my exit and came across this beauty....(the picture I found online, I was traveling at night and it had lights at the bottom to illuminate it). I've never really cared much about the issue, but seeing this sent a shiver down my spine. A flag on a window and i'm indifferent about it.

IMG_9802.png
 
But none of them have the sheer giving-zero-fucks-ness of Trump. He's swapped the GOP's tried and true dog whistle with a bullhorn. He's the candidate the base has been getting primed for for decades. No wonder they love him.

I think that is a real draw. If he jumped in as a Democrat with leftist views, the not giving a fuck attitude would win him support there. Politics are so polarized now that partisans will win either side.
 
So it is still possible to unite all of the 196 countries in the world in one goal: Safe the planet for humanity.

I must say I'm impressed, I didn't believe it could happen. And for the first time I am surprised that almost no one, not even the usual suspects in the shape of environmental groups, are unhappy about it.

Maybe humanity isn't that bad after all...
 
So it is still possible to unite all of the 196 countries in the world in one goal: Safe the planet for humanity.
And what is this treaty, really? Are there any consequences for failing to do whatever a country is supposed to be doing in it?
 
Of course there had to be the grumpy, pessimistic German who only sees the glass half-empty, lurking in a corner :p

Seriously, though: What would you do if a country simply doesn't act according to the treaty and doesn't bother with any consequences from that? Declare war on it? Make it an outlaw? Eliminate it from the world communion?

Realistically there isn't any way to force a country to act on a treaty, no matter if sanctions or not. Realistically all humanity has, is good will.

But for the first time the world is really united in one goal. And despite some minor scepticism one has to acknowledge that.
 
Last edited:
Of course there had to be the grumpy, pessimistic German who only sees the glass half-empty, lurking in a corner :p
May I remind you who opened the "annoying" thread? :p

Sanctions for non-compliance would be a possible way, but yes, I know as well as anyone that the only way to get everyone on board for a treaty is to make it essentially only a declaration of good will. Especially as the goal of the treaty (saving humanity from the effects of climate change) is unreachable.
Anyway, let's hope the world leaders actually put some effort in it.
 
Looks like things are continuing to ramp up in the feud between Moscow and Ankara. If Erdogan plays his biggest trump card and closes the Bosporus I don't see how Putin can respond.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/sikhs-feel-vulnerable-join-muslims-combat-backlash-153144951.html

Attacks on Sikhs have increased because you know....they look like ISIS

CHICAGO (AP) ? Pardeep Kaleka spent several days after 9/11 at his father's South Milwaukee gas station, fearing that his family would be targeted by people who assumed they were Muslim. No, Kaleka explained on behalf of his father, who wore a turban and beard and spoke only in broken English, the family was Sikh, a southeast Asian religion based on equality and unrelated to Islam

But amid a new wave of anti-Islamic sentiment since the terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Kaleka is vowing to take an entirely different approach.

"For us it does not matter who they're targeting," said Kaleka, a former Milwaukee police officer and teacher whose father was one of six people killed in 2012 when a white supremacist opened fire at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. "This time we cannot differentiate ourselves; when hate rhetoric is being spewed we cannot be on the sidelines."

Across the U.S., Sikhs and Muslims are banding together to defend their respective religions. Someone bent on harming Muslims wouldn't understand ? or care ? about the distinction between the two faiths, they say, and both also deserve to live in peace.

So they plan educational sessions and rallies. They successfully pushed the FBI to track hate crimes against Sikhs. They speak to lawmakers and support each other's legal action, including a lawsuit filed over a New York City police surveillance program targeting New Jersey Muslims.

"We are in this fight together," said Gurjot Kaur, a senior staff attorney at The Sikh Coalition, founded the night of Sept. 11.

Sikhism, a monotheistic faith, was founded more than 500 years ago in Southeast Asia and has roughly 27 million followers worldwide, most of them in India.

There are more than 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S. Male followers often cover their heads with turbans ? which are considered sacred ? and refrain from shaving their beards.

Reports of bullying, harassment and vandalism against Sikhs have risen in recent weeks.

Last week, a Sikh temple in Orange County, California, was vandalized, as was a truck in the parking lot by someone who misspelled the word "Islam" and made an obscene reference to ISIS.

A Sikh woman said she recently was forced to show her breast pump before taking her seat on an airplane in Minneapolis because another passenger thought she might be a terrorist. Several Sikh football fans said they initially were not allowed into Qualcomm Stadium to watch the San Diego Chargers game against the Denver Broncos last Sunday because several of them were wearing turbans. Schoolchildren say they've been bullied.

For most Sikhs, much of the backlash has been frequent stares or comments and occasional online insults.

Former NCAA basketball player Darsh Singh said he has heard insults throughout his life, including recently when someone recently yelled "Osama!" at him as he was crossing a street in Phoenix.

Then last week, a photo making the rounds on Facebook showed the former Trinity University basketball player ? the first turbaned Sikh to play in the NCAA ? with the caption: "Nobody wants to guard Muhammad, he's too explosive." A friend came to his defense with a lengthy post ?saying, "do the world a favor and educate yourself" ? which got tens of thousands of likes.

"A lot of people act out of fear or ignorance," said Singh. "I don't know who started it, but whoever they are, I forgive them."

Rajinder Singh Mago, community outreach director at the Sikh Religious Society of Chicago, said it's more difficult for Sikh schoolchildren who sometimes are bullied.

"Ninety-nine percent of Americans are good ... then that one person who just came out of a tavern after a few beers, you don't know what he's thinking at that point," Mago said.

Madihha Ahussain, a staff attorney at the national group Muslim Advocates, said people who are misinformed about both religions not only are "blaming entire faith communities, now they're blaming multiple groups for the acts of a couple individuals."

As a result, some Sikhs have encountered violence.

A Chicago-area teenager was charged with a hate crime after a September road rage incident in which he called 53-year-old Sikh taxi driver Inderjit Mukker "Bin Laden" and repeatedly hit him in the face, breaking his cheekbone.

In 2013, a Green Bay, Wisconsin, man was charged with a hate crime for allegedly setting fire to a convenience store owned by a Sikh-American.

That was less than a year after white supremacist Wade Michael Page killed six people and wounded four others at the Oak Creek temple. Kaleka said his father, Satwant Singh Kaleka, was the last person killed inside the temple, after Page broke into an office where the elder Kaleka was calling 911.

Kaleka said the Muslim community reached out to Sikhs in the aftermath, and members of both faiths ? along with Christians, Jews and others ? are continuing to work together to combat inflammatory rhetoric. Last weekend, he spoke at a Muslim women's coalition.

"I think this is just another test and, unfortunately, I think as bad as the comments are from some politicians, it does surface some underlying issues we haven't addressed," in this country, he said.
 
I don't get it. Life's easier if you materially well-off? Isn't that obvious? Isn't that why we have jobs? All that says to me is that the kid with the blue backpack has parents who work hard to make life easier for their kid, which is arguably the point of life. Hopefully the other kid will be motivated to work hard so that HIS kids have it easier in the future.
 
I don't get it. Life's easier if you materially well-off? Isn't that obvious? Isn't that why we have jobs? All that says to me is that the kid with the blue backpack has parents who work hard to make life easier for their kid, which is arguably the point of life. Hopefully the other kid will be motivated to work hard so that HIS kids have it easier in the future.

Welcome to the mindset of the 19th century, ladies and gentlemen...
 
I don't get it. Life's easier if you materially well-off? Isn't that obvious? Isn't that why we have jobs? All that says to me is that the kid with the blue backpack has parents who work hard to make life easier for their kid, which is arguably the point of life. Hopefully the other kid will be motivated to work hard so that HIS kids have it easier in the future.
I think we can have a guy in between that?s pushing some of the rich kids parents money over to the side of the less fortunate kid - not all of it, just a bit to help out the poor kid get by so doesn?t get left behind. I dunno, maybe we can call it taxes or something like that ...

:santa:
 
Well the mindset of the 20th century seems be wah wah life is unfair so I want to make excuses for my life and instead sit around and compain that the people that actually go to work in the morning aren't giving me enough for a new iPhone. Oh, and the previous sentence offends me so I need to go cry into a fluffy pillow in my safe space and forget about that evil thing called reality.

For every case of legitimate hardship there seems to be ten whining complainers. Apparently the mindset of "if you want it, earn it" that has worked out so well is oh, so "18th century" and outdated, but the failed ideas of socialism are worth another try, right?

/rant

- - - Updated - - -

I think we can have a guy in between that?s pushing some of the rich kids parents money over to the side of the less fortunate kid - not all of it, just a bit to help out the poor kid get by so doesn?t get left behind. I dunno, maybe we can call it taxes or something like that ...

:santa:
Ah, that slippery slope again. Yes, let's sit around and compain that we aren't stealing quite enough from the mythical "rich" who apparently have infinite money that they're just itching to give away. I'm not an anarchist and I support.limited taxation but come on, we're at a point where we have way too many useless, redundant, and downright harmful tax-funded programs that make up our bloated government machine; yet instead of cutting out the waste, we want to dip into other people's pockets yet again and even deeper, even though that clearly isn't.working out in our favor. The best part is that the butthurt progressives who always blame everything on "the rich" keep voting for the corrupt rich politicians like Obama and Hillary Clinton (who was just endorsed by Warren Buffett - you know, that guy known for being middle class).
 
So in your world it is better that a stupid child from rich parents gets preferred all the time, while an intelligent child with lots of potential has no chance for the same kind of education, just because their parents didn't become a millionaire?

I wonder how long it takes you to understand that this is not about rewarding parents for their life-time achievement by granting their children a headstart, but about giving children from ALL strata of society the same chances to begin with?

It's actually quite scary that this kind of deranged social darwinism is still in the minds of people today...
 
Last edited:
... giving children from ALL strata of society the same chances to begin with.
WHY? Why should anything ever be the same? A dumb kid with lots of daddy's money won't amount to much (I have several friends like that), while a kid who is smart and willing to work hard will (I have several friends like that too). Financial well-being at birth helps, sure, but it's far from being end-all be-all - we don't have a caste system.

And sorry, but if I spend my whole life working and leaving an inheritance, I absolutely want my kids to have a leg up over those of someone who hasn't worked as hard. If you disagree, then put your money where your mouth is and send your kids to Somalia and take in a Somalian kid and send him to college.
 
You simply don't get it.

...we don't have a caste system.

Actually you have. As long as not everyone can have the same level of education (because of money), there is a caste system, like it or not.

And again: Education is not a reward for your children because YOU were a busy bee, education is a human right acording to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So it has nothing to do with communism, when people believe that all children should have the same chances at the start of their life and don't have it easier because they won the lottery of life and were born to rich parents.

It's statistically proven that children of rich parents statistically achieve a higher percentage in doctoral degrees, than children from poor parents. And if you believe that has something to do with children from rich parents being more intelligent or working harder, you're dafter than I thought you are.
 
Last edited:
Everyone should have access to a basic level of education and we already have public schools where kids can learn the basics - reading, writing, math, etc. Do well there and you get scholarships and grants and can go on to college. You can also take out a damn loan. The poorest minority kid from the worst neighborhood has the ability to achieve greatness - it might be harder than if his parents were loaded but it is absolutely not impossible.
 
Top