Only in Canada Would The Government want to Slow down The one thing That is working

Pav you said:

On the flip side it would be nice of some would stop having to give flippant arrogant attitude to who ever , for not agreeing with their way of thinking as some one else said it grows tiring too.

Pav I 100% agree with you...Since when does how something is spelled or written when posted more important then the message or opinion being posted?...and...

And how many of us are asking the few who are so bent over backwards to themselves change their ways such as they appear to want to force others to do?...and...

And as far as I am concerned it is a very lame "childish" excuse to say that these individuals are simply trying to understand what someone is writing or saying to justify their behaviors or actions...and...

And I will even go as far as to say that the same behavior is more of an attempt to silence the other individuals instead...and...

And it's all wrong in my opinion my friends...GGF

Pavolo wrote:

grumpy old man wrote:I, for the most part, skip most of those posts. Sorry ggf...

It would be nice if people would be a little more courteous by making just a little more effort to communicate properly.

On the flip side it would be nice of some would stop having to give flippant arrogant attitude to who ever , for not agreeing with their way of thinking as some one else said it grows tiring too.

Sorry if you two feel that way. Call me flippantly arrogant until the cows come home. It does not alter the fact that it takes additional effort to understand what the two of you are saying much of the time.

How anyone would come to the conclusion this is an attempt to subvert their point-of-view completely escapes me. I think sandbox-peeps know me well enough by now that I don't take a round-about way of telling peeps I disagree with them...

Any remarks I make about grammar and communication are NOT attempts to silence anyone. I don't imagine other members of the sandbox are trying to silence anyone either.

I see this as nothing more than a couple of bizarre responses to invitations to improve their method of communication...

Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

It's about time schools started to teach English as a first language imo.

JTF wrote:It's about time schools started to teach English as a first language imo.

Might be too late for some.

Freeman you said:

Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

And it is really funny how the one individual I was specifically referring to earlier would come back with a post such as this because that one individual will always remain in complete denial of ever doing such a thing himself...and...

And or to simply "troll a peep" just so they can to do it all the time to boot...and...

And not just in the Sandbox but perhaps in newspaper commentaries and or other areas with the peep may be found...GGF

@GGF, and whom might you be referring to?

Now chilldrin... sandbox is spelled all lowercase.

What's "troll a peep"?

Freeman wrote:Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

God from you thats priceless , the man who has never taken the time to read the links put to him cause they might prove he is wrong . Would rather post some crap like above .

Basically it means to bait one into replying to personal attacks, going off on a tangent from the original topic of the post. I could pull up the definition of an internet troll but I'm too lazy.

Sorry to GGF and Pav if they took my comments as an attack. I didn't mean to completely derail this thread and turn it into an argument on proper English.

However, I do still find GGF's writing style to be incredibly difficult to read and comprehend. The starting and finishing every sentence with "and" makes it largely illegible. That was my only point. I would have an easier time reading if one were to just remove every vowel instead. The human brain does a remarkably good job of deciphering that, but the start/stop with "and" I just can't process.

Back on topic, I don't think the steps taken by the Fed's are all that terrible. It takes some of the speculators out of the super heated condo market in cities like Vancouver where realtor's and speculator's have completely destroyed any affordability in the condo stock. At least now if they want to play the condo shell game they have to have deeper pocket's to get started, and put more of their own capital at risk.

For first time buyers they changes are relativley minor since changes made really only impact the total amount one can borrow based on their present income. I thnk it was a very smart move not to double the minimum down payment to 10% as it would have made it very difficult for first time buyers in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, and to a lesser degree even Winnipeg. Given that a decent sized 3 bedroom house in Winnipeg is around the $200 to 250K mark unless your willing to move to the hood, it would mean an extra $10-12.5K before one could even consider entering the market. That's not exactly a small sum of money for most couples/families starting out. IMHO, thad they made that switch it would have really killed the market for at least 2-3 years as it would have removed most first time buyers from the market untill they propped their savings up.

Freeman wrote:Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

Pav you said:

God from you thats priceless , the man who has never taken the time to read the links put to him cause they might prove he is wrong . Would rather post some crap like above .

Yup Pav and be careful now because Freeman may come back and try and convince all of us that we are actually speaking about some credit card using "Intelligent Words" like "And" or "Because"...GGF

Pavolo wrote:

Freeman wrote:Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

God from you thats priceless , the man who has never taken the time to read the links put to him cause they might prove he is wrong . Would rather post some crap like above .

Thank you, I've always considered myself priceless,but its great t hear it from you.

Truth be told, I have read some of your links, but, generally, I find them to be irrelevant to the issue being discussed nor do they support your positiuon, so I figure what's the point, and I have made this quite clear in the past.

GGF wrote:

Freeman wrote:Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

Pav you said:

God from you thats priceless , the man who has never taken the time to read the links put to him cause they might prove he is wrong . Would rather post some crap like above .

Yup Pav and be careful now because Freeman may come back and try and convince all of us that we are actually speaking about some credit card using "Intelligent Words" like "And" or "Because"...GGF

Pav and GGF, are you guys related?

grumpyrom wrote:



Back on topic.... It takes some of the speculators out of the super heated condo market in cities like Vancouver where realtor's and speculator's have completely destroyed any affordability in the condo stock. At least now if they want to play the condo shell game they have to have deeper pocket's to get started, and put more of their own capital at risk.

Exactly.

For first time buyers they changes are relativley minor since changes made really only impact the total amount one can borrow based on their present income. I thnk it was a very smart move not to double the minimum down payment to 10% as it would have made it very difficult for first time buyers in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, and to a lesser degree even Winnipeg. Given that a decent sized 3 bedroom house in Winnipeg is around the $200 to 250K mark unless your willing to move to the hood, it would mean an extra $10-12.5K before one could even consider entering the market. That's not exactly a small sum of money for most couples/families starting out. IMHO, thad they made that switch it would have really killed the market for at least 2-3 years as it would have removed most first time buyers from the market untill they propped their savings up.

...and another exactly.

Most people couldn't save as fast as the prices would rise...even now.

GGF wrote:

Freeman wrote:Its always best to prove your point by resorting to personal attacks (ie flippantly arrogant), rather than to actually discuss. The point is that it is incredibly difficult to understand the point that some are trying to make. Metaphors, rhetoric and outright rants are great, but basic grammar would really help.

Pav you said:

God from you thats priceless , the man who has never taken the time to read the links put to him cause they might prove he is wrong . Would rather post some crap like above .

Yup Pav and be careful now because Freeman may come back and try and convince all of us that we are actually speaking about some credit card using "Intelligent Words" like "And" or "Because"...GGF

GGF your last 5 or 6 posts have contributed nothing to the thread in which they were posted. At least make an effort to contribute in a meaningful manner or go elsewhere.

Grumpyrom...I can appreciate what you said about my writing and I have explained it many times...and...

And you know Grumpyrom for the record...I have been doing nothing but trying to keep the threads on track but continue to find them going off track because a select few are allowed to simply attack the individual with little or no regards for the individual who is being attacked or the thread subject matter...and...

And the worst part is that in some/many cases the individuals being personally attacked are then silenced or if they retaliate...The thread ends up in nowhere land...GGF

grumpyrom wrote:Back on topic, I don't think the steps taken by the Fed's are all that terrible. It takes some of the speculators out of the super heated condo market in cities like Vancouver where realtor's and speculator's have completely destroyed any affordability in the condo stock. At least now if they want to play the condo shell game they have to have deeper pocket's to get started, and put more of their own capital at risk.

For first time buyers they changes are relativley minor since changes made really only impact the total amount one can borrow based on their present income. I thnk it was a very smart move not to double the minimum down payment to 10% as it would have made it very difficult for first time buyers in markets like Vancouver and Toronto, and to a lesser degree even Winnipeg. Given that a decent sized 3 bedroom house in Winnipeg is around the $200 to 250K mark unless your willing to move to the hood, it would mean an extra $10-12.5K before one could even consider entering the market. That's not exactly a small sum of money for most couples/families starting out. IMHO, thad they made that switch it would have really killed the market for at least 2-3 years as it would have removed most first time buyers from the market untill they propped their savings up.

I agree, the "no money down" thing is incredibly dangerous in a volatile market, and we can learn that lesson from the Americans. In spite of my belief in a free market, it only makes sense that there is immediate equity in a home purchase. If I were a lender, I would certainly want to ensure that the homeowner had a stake in the property. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, homeowners in Calgary were simply surrendering their keys to the banks as they had nothing to lose as values dropped.

You would hope that everyone has learned some lessons over the past 30 years.

GOM you said:

GGF your last 5 or 6 posts have contributed nothing to the thread in which they were posted. At least make an effort to contribute in a meaningful manner or go elsewhere.

GOM that is exactly what I have been trying to do...I want the threads to remain as threads already...GGF

It would be nice if a mod could clean up this thread.

How do you propose "a mod" go about that? Remember we do not delete posts in this forum... Slippery slope eh whot.

JTF, I'm in the "can't save fast enough" boat myself so the 10% minimum would have kept me out of the market for at least another 3 to 5 years. As it is given my own personal situation over the last 10 years (job instability, layoffs, 2 kids etc.), it has been difficult enough to save the 10 to 15k needed to enter tha market as it currently is given all the price increases over the last 6 to 7 years.

Freeman you said:

I agree, the "no money down" thing is incredibly dangerous in a volatile market, and we can learn that lesson from the Americans. In spite of my belief in a free market, it only makes sense that there is immediate equity in a home purchase. If I were a lender, I would certainly want to ensure that the homeowner had a stake in the property. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, homeowners in Calgary were simply surrendering their keys to the banks as they had nothing to lose as values dropped.

You would hope that everyone has learned some lessons over the past 30 years.

What the feds have proposed with the new mortgage regulations in April don't have anything to do with "No Money Down for Properties" but simply the amount of money required extra as a down payment etc...and...

And also the Feds are against taxing the "Banks on their profits" and what the issue will cause with the G20 nations in the spring which is what this thread is about...GGF

But what has caused the incease in prices, is that not because there is a demand created by more buyers, many of whom can "afford" to buy because of the requirement for a minimal down stroke?

Grumprom...

Your absolutely right about not being able to save enough for a down payment and so on with these new mortgage regulations coming in April which was what I was referring to in one of my previous posts...and...

And what truly gets me going is how the federal government continues to refuse to "Tax Canadian Banks" on their profits...GGF

No money down and 35 year amortizations will lead to a collapse of the market, just like the States.

Those two areas shouldn't affect most buyers....just the spectulators....and that's a good thing imo.