But how did this get so little press coverage? 2008 was an election year wasn't it? Harper did not have a majority government at the time, where were the opposition parties?
In addition, many of the mortgages that are bundled together to make up these securities are not in default, unlike the situation in the United States. For instance, in the second quarter of 2008, the percentage of American mortgages that were more than 90 days in arrears — a measure of the level of home defaults — stood at a gaudy 4.5 per cent. In Canada, that same figure stood at 0.3 per cent.Um... Er... Forgive my laymen knowledge of the world of high finance, but that does not sound like trouble requiring truckloads of our money dumped on it. Rather it sounds like the banks might have to adjust to not breaking records with their annual profits for a couple of years.
Seriously, the banks don't report having lost money, they report having lost profits. Meaning in 2010 if a bank made 5.2 billion but in 2011 they expect to make 5.6 billion... A loss in profit means they only make 4.8 billion in 2011 that is a profit loss of 400 million and is 800 million under expectations. These profits are always 'net' profits meaning after expenses so a true loss would be a negative number. They still are not shaking anybody upside-down looking for loose change. This clearly illustrates there was still money coming in.
In 2008 during the global financial collapse TD and RBC were actually buying other banks and insurance companies in the U.S. and Brazil, spending billions on growing their empire. That is not the kind of activity of the impoverished and destitute, bankruptcy is. If I walked into the welfare office with 1 million dollars in my bank account I'd be kicked to the curb. This was a much larger sum of money than the pittance of a monthly welfare check.
So why do they need our money? Better still, it looks as though we are probably paying interest on the money we gave them?!!!
Excerpt from globalresearch.ca
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.And yet there was so little press, no debate, and we still voted this 'balanced budget guy' in more than once more? We just voted this person's free reign in a majority government? Why?