Saturday, December 29, 2012


The Toronto-based Investor Education Fund (IEF) is taking the approach that it's never too early to start learning about finances. The IEF is kicking off this year's Financial Literacy Month with a youth summit in the Greater Toronto Area.

"What we're going to be doing is bringing in some of the most dynamic presenters on this topic," says Tom Hamza, president of the IEF. "People who understand the audience and people who are experts in doing this exact thing."

The Financial Literacy Youth Summit, which is scheduled to take place on Nov. 1 in Richmond Hill, Ont., will offer about 600 high-school students a crash course in finances. Presenters include Pat Foran, author and consumer advocate; and comedian James Cunningham, creator of Funny Money, an educational program geared toward students.

Reaching out to youth about finances, both at the summit and in schools across the country, is all part of the plan to raise the level of financial literacy in Canada over the long term.

"If we want to have an impact on the financial awareness of the Canadian population, we have to start as early as possible," Hamza says. "If we can reach [students] with really practical and memorable lessons, then that's going to be something that's going to pay off over their lifetime."

For this year's version of Financial Literacy Month, which was launched last year by the Financial Literacy Action Group (FLAG), a coalition of non-profit organizations, there are events scheduled across the country meant to educate students and adults alike.

Although FLAG members are still helping with co-ordinating many of the events, the Federal Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) has taken on a larger role in the overall organization for Financial Literacy Month.

"We are playing a co-ordinating role," says Julie Hauser, a media relations officer with the FCAC in Ottawa. "We have the events calendar on our website and we've invited partners from across the country to submit their events to the calendar so that we can provide information on what's going on across Canada."

One of those events is Financial Planning Week, which takes place from Nov. 19 to 25 and will be hosted by the Toronto-based Financial Planning Standards Council (FPSC). There will be several events across the country, hosted by certified financial planners and covering topics related to financial literacy and financial planning, says Tamara Smith, vice president, marketing and consumer affairs, with the FPSC in Toronto.

Canadians also can go online to learn more about how finances and financial planning work.

The IEF is launching numerous calculators throughout November on its website, (, Hamza says. Some calculators that already are on the website help with a variety of financial issues, such as budgeting and registered retirement savings plan contributions.

The IEF also plans to raise awareness through the promotion of its "eight financial truths," Hamza says, which are meant to make Canadians realize that while financial matters take some thought, they don't have to be intimidating. "We've put this together to help Canadians get an action plan to resolve some of the financial issues that are out there," he says, "and create some more effective long-term financial plans."

There is little doubt that Canadians need help in understanding personal finance issues. Many studies and surveys have highlighted this problem, including one recent survey from the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). Of those who took the CSA survey, about 40% failed a test on general investment knowledge. (See story on page 12.)

Many of the financial problems faced by consumers today are highly complex, and are a challenge to understand, says Smith. High levels of student debt, the difficulties of being part of the "sandwich generation" and the boomers' growing switch from saving to de-accumulation are placing a strain on financial know-how.

"There are a lot of complex needs out there," says Smith. "And what [the CSA survey and others] tell us is that we are not literate enough to manage all of these challenges without a higher degree of literacy and without a lot of expert help."

Financial advisors and financial services firms are in a unique position to educate their clients on personal finances. Many financial planners involved in the FPSC encourage clients to bring their children to meetings, says Smith, and also will start working with that child on his or her planning needs as he or she enters post-secondary education. "If you can approach financial planning as a family," she says, "financial planners see a lot of benefit in that."

Although actively engaging with clients and their families in meetings is a start, it may take years before the level of financial literacy in Canada truly changes, Hamza says: "A solution is going to happen over decades. And that change can only be brought about by educating the public and leadership from the industry and government to raise awareness of financial issues affecting Canadian households."

© 2012 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.

By Fiona Collie
Investment Executive
Nov. 2012

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


8:48 AM, Oct 24, 2012 |
- President Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of more than 2,000 on Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. (Bryon Houlgrave/The Des Moines Register)
Written by
Copyright Register & Tribune Co. 2012

Without comment, campaign officials for President Obama this morning released to the Des Moines Register a transcript of an interview he had Tuesday with Laura Hollingsworth, president and publisher of the Register, and Rick Green, editor/vice-president of news. Initially, the White House had asked that the conversation be considered off-the-record and its details not shared with readers. Its release comes on the heels of a Tuesday evening blog post by Green questioning why an endorsement interview with the Register would be off-the-record.

Interview of the President by Rick Green & Laura Hollingsworth, The Des Moines Register

Good morning, Mr. President — Laura Hollingsworth, with the Des Moines Register
THE PRESIDENT: Hi, how are you?

Q: Very well. We haven’t spoken in four years. We’re excited to be able to talk with you
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m so glad to talk to you. And I understand Rick is joining us as well
Q: Rick Green is right next to me, our editor, yes
Q: Good morning, Mr. President. How are you sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m doing great and looking forward to being back in Iowa.

Q: Good, see you later this week.

Q: You’ve been here a lot. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: It’s home away from home.
But I know that our time is limited and you guys have a lot of questions. I thought maybe it would be useful for me to just summarize how I see a second term very quickly, and then you guys can pepper me with questions. Does that sound okay?

Q: Thank you very much

Obviously, I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished over the last four years.
A lot of it was responding to the most severe economic emergency we’ve had
since the Great Depression. And whether it was saving the auto industry,
stabilizing the financial system, making sure that we got into a growth mode
again and started putting people back to work, we have made real progress.

But people are obviously still hurting in a lot of parts of the country. And
that’s why last night I tried to reiterate a very specific plan that we’ve put
forward to make sure that the economy is growing, we’re bringing down our
deficit, and we’re creating jobs.

So, number one, I’m very interested in continuing to build on the work that we
did not just in the auto industry but some of the other industrial sectors,
bringing manufacturing back to our shores; changing our tax code to reward
companies that are investing here. There is a real sense that companies are
starting to make decisions about insourcing, and some modest incentives I think
can make a real difference in terms of us seeing continued manufacturing
growth, which obviously has huge ramifications throughout the economy,
including in the service sector of the economy.

Number two, education, which has obviously been a priority for us over the last
four years — I want to build on what we’ve done with Race to the Top, but
really focus on STEM education — math, science, technology, computer science.
And part of that is helping states to hire teachers with the highest standards
and training in these subjects so we can start making sure that our kids are
catching up to some of the other industrialized world.
Two million more slots in community colleges that allows our workers to
retrain, but also young people who may not want to go to a four-year college,
making sure that the training they’re receiving is actually for jobs that are
out there right now. And we want to continue to work — building on the
progress we’ve done over the last four years — to keep tuition low for those
who do attend either a two-year or a four-year college.

Number three, controlling our own energy. This obviously is of interest to
Iowa. Our support of biofuels, our support of wind energy has created thousands
of jobs in Iowa. But even more importantly, this is going to be the race to the
future. The country that controls new sources of energy, not just the
traditional sources, is going to have a huge competitive advantage 10 years
from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now.

So in addition to doubling our fuel-efficiency standards on cars and trucks,
what we want to do is make sure that we’re producing new technologies here –
long-lasting batteries, making sure that we are developing the wind and solar
and other energy sources that may provide us a breakthrough. In the meantime,
we’re still producing oil and natural gas at a record pace, but we’ve got to
start preparing for the future. And as I said, it creates jobs right now in

Number four, I want to reduce our deficit. It’s got to be done in a balanced
way. I’ve already cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending. I’m willing to do
more. I’m willing to cut more, and I’m willing to work with Democrats and
Republicans when it comes to making some adjustments that bring down the cost
of our health care programs, which obviously are the biggest drivers of our

But nobody who looks at the numbers thinks it’s realistic for us to actually
reduce our deficit in a serious way without also having some revenue. And we’ve
identified tax rates going up to the Clinton rates for income above $250,000;
making some adjustments in terms of the corporate tax side that could actually
bring down the corporate tax overall, but broaden the base and close some
loopholes. That would be good for our economy, and it would be good for
reducing our deficit.

And finally, using some of the war savings to put people back to work on
infrastructure — roads, bridges. We’ve fallen behind in that area. And we can
– this deferred maintenance, we can put people to work, back, right now, and
at the same time make sure that our economy is more competitive over the long

So that’s sort of a summary of the things I want to accomplish to create jobs
and economic growth. Obviously, there are other items on the agenda. We need to
get immigration reform done, and I’m fully committed to doing that. I think
there’s still more work on the energy efficiency side that we can do — helping
to retrofit our buildings, schools, hospitals, so that they’re energy efficient
– because if we achieved efficiencies at the level of, let’s say, Japan, we
could actually cut our power bill by about 20-25 percent, and that would have
the added benefit of taking a whole bunch of carbon out of the atmosphere.
So there are some things that we can do, but obviously the key focus is making
sure that the economy is growing. That will facilitate all the other work that
we do.

Q: Very good, Mr. President. First question for you — obviously, we all
know that restoring the national economy is the number-one issue among voters.
And here in Iowa, obviously, we struggle with the same thing. I’ll tell you
that our editorial board is struggling with that same thing. What will — and
many believe that we’ve only engineered a recovery based on more spending,
delaying sort of the inevitable, and that even looking at growth projections
for next year, very weak based on current trend lines. So why will your plan
for a second term yield better results than what we saw in the first four years
of the administration? And how are we going to grow at a faster pace?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, keep in mind that some of this is us just working
through a very, very deep worldwide financial-based recession. And you guys are
probably familiar with some of the work that’s been done on this. Recessions
that follow a financial crash of some sort, including the popping of the
housing bubble, are not regular recessions. They’re not your typical business
cycle recession. And so, in many ways, because of the actions we took early on,
we’re actually ahead of pace in the typical recovery out of a recession like

But the potential for upside growth remains very strong. Keep in mind that we
are growing faster than just about any other large industrialized country.
We’re growing faster than Europe. We’re growing faster than Japan. And part of
the challenge we have right now — we’ve had a bunch of headwinds because
Europe is still getting its act together. China, its economy has been weakened.
And so world trade generally has been somewhat depressed over the last year.
But despite that, we’ve doubled our exports. And
if you combine a prudent deficit plan, a serious emphasis on our manufacturing
strengths, retraining our workers, a very real energy boom both in natural gas
but also in clean energy, and the infrastructure that traditionally has not
been a partisan issue — we’ve got a lot of deferred maintenance that needs to
be done — even as the housing market is starting finally to recover — you
combine those things, and there’s no reason why we can’t have a significant
surge of growth.

Conversely, if we adopted my opponent’s plans for a $5 trillion tax cut that he
claims would somehow be paid for by deductions and — closing of deductions and
loopholes that nobody can identify how to pay for, either we’re blowing up that
deficit, or what’s going to end up happening is you end up seeing middle-class
families taxed. That’s the absolute worst thing that could be done for the
economy right now.

So I’m actually optimistic that if you combine the elements of my plan
together, we can grow faster and create the kind of virtuous cycle that allows
businesses to start investing and hiring a lot more aggressively. Keep in mind,
over the first — or let’s say, over the previous two and a half years,
corporate profits had been at record levels. Companies are awash with cash. And
what they’ve been missing are enough customers out there to prompt demand and
justify them investing in more plant equipment and workers. So if we can just trigger
that, there’s enough capital out there in order for us to get on that virtuous

Q: Great. Mr. President, we know that John Boehner and the House
Republicans have not been easy to work with, and certainly you’ve had some
obstacles in the Senate, even though it’s been controlled by the Democrats. At
the time, whenever — we talked a lot about, in 2008, hope and change. I’m
curious about what you see your role is in terms of changing the tone and the
perception that Washington is broken. But particularly, sir, if you were
granted a second term, how do you implode this partisan gridlock that has
gripped Washington and Congress and basically our entire political structure
right now?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Rick, let me answer you short term and long term.
In the short term, the good news is that there’s going to be a forcing
mechanism to deal with what is the central ideological argument in Washington
right now, and that is: How much government do we have and how do we pay for

So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the
commitment of both myself and my opponent — at
least Governor Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit — but we’re
going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going
to solve that big piece of business.

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident
that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially
I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50
worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our
health care programs.

And we can easily meet — “easily” is the wrong word — we can credibly meet
the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in
deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years, and we can stabilize our
deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for
long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business
off the table.

The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform.
And since this is off the record, I will just be very blunt. Should I win a
second term, a big reason I will win a second term is because the Republican
nominee and the Republican Party have so alienated the fastest-growing
demographic group in the country, the Latino community. And this is a
relatively new phenomenon. George Bush and Karl Rove were smart enough to
understand the changing nature of America. And so I am fairly confident that
they’re going to have a deep interest in getting that done. And I want to get
it done because it’s the right thing to do and I’ve cared about this ever since
I ran back in 2008.

So assume that you get those two things done in the first year, and we’re
implementing Wall Street reform, Obamacare turns out not to have been the scary
monster that the other side has painted. Now we’re in a position where we can
start on some things that really historically have not been ideological. We can
start looking at a serious corporate tax reform agenda that’s revenue-neutral
but lowers rates and broadens the base — something that both Republicans and
Democrats have expressed an interest in.

I’ve expressed a deep desire and taken executive action to weed out regulations
that aren’t contributing to the health and public safety of our people. And
we’ve made a commitment to look back and see if there are regulations out there
that aren’t working, then let’s get rid of them and see if we can clear out
some of the underbrush on that. Again, that’s something that should be

My hope is, is that there’s a recognition that now is a great time to make
infrastructure improvements all across the country. And we can pull up some of
the money that we know we’re going to be spending over the next decade to put
people back to work right now at a time when contractors are dying for work and
interest rates are really low.

And, again, that’s something that even John Boehner – John Boehner and Mitch
McConnell, they’ve got a bridge linking Cincinnati and Kentucky, and the bridge
is so broken down that folks are having to drive an hour and a half of extra
commuting just to get across the Ohio River. There’s no reason why we can’t
work on things like that and put people back to work.

So I just want to contrast with what happens if Mitt Romney is elected. I know
that he likes to talk about his Massachusetts record. The truth is there really
were two Mitt Romneys. There was the Mitt Romney who initially got elected,
passed Obamacare, and was interested in being the governor of Massachusetts.
After his second year, it was the Mitt Romney who was running for president and
abandoned all his previous positions.

And the problem you’ve seen in this campaign is he’s made commitments — his
first day he’s got to introduce a bill to repeal Obamacare. And that’s a
commitment he cannot back off of. That is a huge, messy fight. His first day in
office, he has to make some commitments in rolling back things like the
Consumer Finance Protection Board we put in place on Wall Street reform. His
budget — the Ryan budget — there’s no way that, if he’s president, he can
avoid having a showdown on a budget that his running mate introduced, or a
variation of it, because he’s
committed to cutting spending by 20 percent
across the board on discretionary and increasing defense spending by $2

Q: Yes, that begs a question from us, Mr. President. Some say you had a
super majority in your first two years and had this incredible opportunity, but
because of what you were talking about, as you were running, you had to go to
get Obamacare done. Do you have any regrets taking on some of the economic
issues, some of the issues that we’re talking about for your second term, that
when you had the chance, so to speak, during your first — do you have any
regrets that you didn’t do that at that time?

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not, Laura. Remember the context. First of
all, Mitch McConnell has imposed an ironclad filibuster from the first day I
was in office. And that’s not speculation. I mean, this is — it’s amply
recorded. He gave a speech saying, my task is to defeat the President.
So we were able to pass emergency action with the stimulus, but we had to get
two votes from Republicans. One of them essentially was driven out of the party
– Arlen Specter, who recently passed away. We then — because Al Franken
hadn’t been seated, didn’t have 60 votes until essentially — there was a four-
or five-month span. But at that point, we had already put in place the Recovery
Act. We had already moved forward to help states avoid teacher layoffs and so

And we were already in the process of stabilizing the banks. We had already
engineered the process that would save the auto industry. And there was not
going to be any appetite among Democrats or Republicans to take additional
actions until we saw the progress that was making — that needed to be made.
And our health care system is one-sixth of our economy. And if we have a situation
where spending on health care at every level is going up at 6, 7, 10 percent a
year, and we’ve got millions of people without coverage or inadequate coverage,
the suggestion that that’s not a central economic priority for the country is
just something that I wouldn’t buy.

And the suggestion somehow that if we hadn’t pursued Obamacare, somehow we
would have gotten additional stimulus out of the Republicans, for example, that
we could have primed the pump more, that’s just not borne out by any of the

In fact, the first stimulus, when we were contracting at 8 percent a quarter,
as I was on my way up — a month after I’d been elected, or two months after
I’d been elected — as I was on my way up to meet the House Republicans to
share with them my ideas about how we should pass this Recovery Act, they
already said they’d vote against it.

Now, it was a political strategy that won them
back the House, but it wasn’t good for the country. And I think the country
recognizes that. So what I want to do — now we’re in a different position, and
I genuinely believe that one of the best things we can do for the economy is to
settle this issue of government spending, entitlements, and revenues so that we
can provide the kind of certainty that I think businesses and individuals are
looking for.

Q: One question — as you watch voters here and just everyday
interactions with people that are so undecided, so fearful of either choice –
I found people becoming even more ambivalent and even voters making statements
such as it really doesn’t matter who’s President anyway because of the problems
in Congress and really that’s what’s going on — what would you say to a
statement that somebody was saying, it doesn’t really matter who should be

THE PRESIDENT: Well, what I’d say is that it will matter to millions of
Americans who may or may not have health care. It will matter to millions of
seniors who maybe — or soon-to-be seniors who may be faced with the prospect
of a voucher system for Medicare.

It will matter to young people all across the country who were born here,
pledged allegiance to our flag, went to school here, and are Americans in every
way except they don’t have documentation and would continue to be at risk of

It will matter to middle-class families who are going to find themselves locked
out of the discussion in terms of how we balance our budget, or at least reduce
our deficit, facing the prospect that things like the tax credit we put in
place for kids going to college, the earned income tax credit, a whole bunch of
things that make sure working people stay out of poverty — that could all go

The consequences on just about every indicator out there would be enormous. And
so if the question is, will the economy drastically improve, are we going to
get back to — are we going to get to 4 or 5 percent growth if I’m reelected
versus Mitt Romney — there are some big global economic issues that are being
worked through.

But the question I think for voters, in addition to what’s going to be good for
me and my family tomorrow, is, what’s going to be good for America five years
from now or 10 years from now. And if we have not built an education system
that works and makes sure that college is affordable, if we have not won the
race for future energy technologies, if we’re slashing funding for things like
basic research, if we are not rebuilding our infrastructure, then 5, 10 years
from now we are going to be a weaker nation. And that has huge consequences.
Now, obviously, if somebody believes that the government has been the problem
and will remain the problem, and if we just strip down government to defense
spending and Social Security and some watered-down version of Medicare and
Medicaid, and we shouldn’t be doing anything else, then obviously Mitt Romney
is the candidate. There’s no indication, based on either historical evidence or
what’s happening around the world, that that’s the recipe for long-term
sustainable economic growth.

Q: Mr. President, we’re very sensitive to your time. I know you’ve got a
busy schedule. But we just had just one last question here. As we close in on
the final hours of this campaign — it’s been a long one. It’s been exhausting.
It’s been very, very expensive, as I know you know. Why should the Des Moines Register offer its endorsement to you, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you guys have seen me up close. I wouldn’t be on
the national stage had it not been for the people of Iowa. And if you look at
what I said to you this time four years ago, and the commitments I’ve made, I
have kept and met those commitments, or I have worked really hard to keep them
and meet them.

I said that I’d cut taxes for middle-class families — I did. I said that we
would make sure to make college more affordable — we have. I said I would
clean up the financial system and pass the toughest Wall Street reforms since
the 1930s, and we have. I said that I would make sure that people don’t go
broke in this country because they get sick — we did that. I said I’d end the
war in Iraq — I have. I said we’d got after al Qaeda and bin Laden — we have.
I said we’d begin a process where we could initially blunt the momentum of the
Taliban and then a process in which we’d begin transitioning out — we’re in
the process of doing that.

So across the board, I’ve done what I said. And this is in the midst of I think
what everybody would agree were some pretty historic circumstances. And the
criteria by which I’ve made these decisions has always been what’s good for
America’s families, how do we build our middle class, how do we grow the
economy in a way that broad-based and sustainable.

The notion that somehow we’ve been bad for business is obviously contradicted
by the evidence. Corporate profits have been at record levels up until maybe
last quarter. The stock market basically has recovered all its losses that it
experienced from the financial sector. The auto industry has come roaring back.
Our exports have doubled.

For the people of Iowa that are so dependent on the agricultural sector — the
agricultural sector has never done better than it has under my administration.
Even in the midst of this year’s drought it’s still doing well.

When it comes to clean energy that I talked about so much back in 2007-2008,
we’ve doubled our production of clean energy. And we’re starting to see the
costs of that energy come down, the number of jobs it generates go up.

I got to tell you, I feel very strongly that I have a record that justifies a second term. But I guess, more importantly, what you also know is that I’m somebody who keeps my word, that I don’t read the polls, that I do what I think is right for the American people, even when it is
profoundly unpopular politically. And I think that’s worth something. I think
that’s the kind of leadership the people of Iowa want.

Q: Very good.

Q: Thank you so much, Mr. President, for your time.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, guys. I appreciate you taking the time. I want
your endorsement.
Q: Thank you so much.

THE PRESIDENT: You’ll feel better when you give it. (Laughter.) All
right? Bye-bye
Q: Appreciate it.

Thursday, September 6, 2012


Clinton offers unflinching endorsement

CHARLOTTE, N.C.— Bill Clinton, riding a wave of popularity greater now than on the day he became president, put it all on the line for Barack Obama Wednesday night with an endorsement for the ages.

Ending days of speculation over their once-brittle relationship, Clinton cast his lot with President Obama with rule-breaking audacity — all but abandoning his written script and speaking straight from the heart.

Clocking in at an epic 48 minutes — almost double the allotted time — Clinton drove teleprompter operators to distraction, ignoring the text to free-riff his way through a president’s-eye view of why Obama is the obvious choice on Nov. 6
“When we vote in this election, we’ll be deciding what kind of country we want to live in,” Clinton told a jammed arena in Charlotte. “If you want a winner-take-all, you’re-onyour-own society, you should support the Republican ticket.

“But if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility — a we’re-all-in-thistogether society — you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Clinton rounded on Republicans, reducing the message of last week’s GOP convention in Tampa to a single self-incriminating sentence: “We left him a total mess, he hasn’t finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in.

“I like the argument for President Obama’s re-election a lot better,” Clinton said.
“He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses and lots of new wealth for the innovators.”

It was an astonishing performance — one that transformed the night, the convention, perhaps even the race itself.

Clinton drilled down into detail with a folksy candour, making Obama’s case on economic recovery, health care, jobs, debt and the threats that loom over Medicare and Medicaid, the country’s two most expensive and beloved entitlement programs
It all added up to full-throated endorsement likely to be studied for years in political science classes everywhere
Coming on the heels of Michelle Obama’s tear-tinged testimonial Tuesday, it all sets up Obama for a convention-ending finale Thursday. But the former president’s performance introduces a vexing new challenge — how, precisely, does the current president outdo this?

However Obama intends to frame his appeal for a second term, the words won’t come as originally planned.

Early Wednesday, his campaign cited ominous weather projections in shifting from Charlotte’s 74,000seat outdoor football stadium to the 20,000-seat Time Warner Cable Arena, the setting for each of the past two nights. The move will leave tens of thousands of Obama loyalists high, dry and speechless. But it also spares the campaign the embarrassing optics of a stadium-sized appearance that would have begged comparison to four years ago in Denver, when pre-crash America first fell in love with “hope and change.”

Clinton’s remarks in Charlotte crowned a night in which Democrats shifted to a far more aggressive — and socially combative — stance, rolling out dozens of speakers in a carefully co-ordinated repudiation of the Republican agenda under Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

The hit came on all levels, each framing GOP aspirations as throwbacks to an antiquated America where women, Hispanics and working families were — and will again be — left behind
Cecile Richards, whose Planned Parenthood organization would be stripped of federal funding under a Romney administration, warned: “This year women learned that if we aren’t at the table, we’re on the menu.”
She listed Obama’s policies on women’s health. “We will no longer pay more than men for the same health insurance. Thanks to President Obama, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition.”

But none of Wednesday’s culture warriors battled like Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student who objected to being shut out of congressional testimony on contraception earlier this year, only to be branded a “slut” by arch-conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Taking a coveted prime-time slot on the convention stage, Fluke warned that America faces a choice in which “extreme, bigoted voices” could hold sway over women, and limit access to abortion, to birth control and to help for domestic violence victims. Or, she said, Americans could stick with a president who, “when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters — not his delegates or donors — and stands with all women.”

The Charlotte faithful rose to their feet in ovation. Women figured prominently throughout the night — a reflection not only of their greater numbers among Democratic lawmakers but also of the huge premium Team Obama places on female voters
Elizabeth Warren, embroiled in a close race for Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s seat, echoed her plea for economic fairness that became a viral web sensation in 2011. “No Gov. Romney, corporations are not people,” said Warren. “People have hearts, they have kids, they get jobs, they get sick. . . . That matters because we don’t run this country for corporations, we run it for people. And that’s why we need Barack Obama.”

Clinton didn’t deny that times are tough now, but told voters, “I know we’re coming back.” “For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we’ve always come back,” he said. “We come through every fire a little stronger and a little better. And we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honour — the cause of forming a more perfect union. “If that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama.”

Mitch Potter
Toronto Star


The rich just think differently than everyone else

Recently the world's richest woman said the middle class' priorities are keeping them from getting rich.

Seven Media Group - News - Mining magnate Gina Rinehart has said Australian wages are damaging economic development, even going so far to provoke a stinging rebuke from Billionaire Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, is famous for his many cars. Among …

World's richest woman Gina Rinehart is enduring a media firestorm over an article in which she takes the "jealous" middle class to task for "drinking, or smoking and socializing" rather than working to earn their own fortune.

What if she has a point?

Steve Siebold, author of "How Rich People Think," spent nearly three decades interviewing millionaires around the world to find out what separates them from everyone else.

It had little to do with money itself, he told Business Insider. It was about their mentality.

"[The middle class] tells people to be happy with what they have," he said. "And on the whole, most people are steeped in fear when it comes to money."

1. Average people think MONEY is the root of all evil. Rich people believe POVERTY is the root of all evil.

"The average person has been brainwashed to believe rich people are lucky or dishonest," Siebold writes.

That's why there's a certain shame that comes along with "getting rich" in lower-income communities.

"The world class knows that while having money doesn't guarantee happiness, it does make your life easier and more enjoyable."

2. Average people think selfishness is a vice. Rich people think selfishness is a virtue.

"The rich go out there and try to make themselves happy. They don't try to pretend to save the world," Siebold told Business Insider.

The problem is that middle class people see that as a negative––and it's keeping them poor, he writes.

"If you're not taking care of you, you're not in a position to help anyone else. You can't give what you don't have."

3. Average people have a lottery mentality. Rich people have an action mentality.

"While the masses are waiting to pick the right numbers and praying for prosperity, the great ones are solving problems," Siebold writes.

"The hero [middle class people] are waiting for may be God, government, their boss or their spouse. It's the average person's level of thinking that breeds this approach to life and living while the clock keeps ticking away."

4. Average people think the road to riches is paved with formal education. Rich people believe in acquiring specific knowledge.

"Many world-class performers have little formal education, and have amassed their wealth through the acquisition and subsequent sale of specific knowledge," he writes.

"Meanwhile, the masses are convinced that master's degrees and doctorates are the way to wealth, mostly because they are trapped in the linear line of thought that holds them back from higher levels of consciousness...The wealthy aren't interested in the means, only the end."

5. Average people long for the good old days. Rich people dream of the future.

"Self-made millionaires get rich because they're willing to bet on themselves and project their dreams, goals and ideas into an unknown future," Siebold writes.

"People who believe their best days are behind them rarely get rich, and often struggle with unhappiness and depression."

6. Average people see money through the eyes of emotion. Rich people think about money logically.

"An ordinarily smart, well-educated and otherwise successful person can be instantly transformed into a fear-based, scarcity driven thinker whose greatest financial aspiration is to retire comfortably," he writes.

"The world class sees money for what it is and what it's not, through the eyes of logic. The great ones know money is a critical tool that presents options and opportunities."
7. Average people earn money doing things they don't love. Rich people follow their passion.

"To the average person, it looks like the rich are working all the time," Siebold says. "But one of the smartest strategies of the world class is doing what they love and finding a way to get paid for it."

On the other hand, middle class take jobs they don't enjoy "because they need the money and they've been trained in school and conditioned by society to live in a linear thinking world that equates earning money with physical or mental effort."
8. Average people set low expectations so they're never disappointed. Rich people are up for the challenge.

"Psychologists and other mental health experts often advise people to set low expectations for their life to ensure they are not disappointed," Siebold writes.

"No one would ever strike it rich and live their dreams without huge expectations."

BarackObamadotcom via YouTube
9. Average people believe you have to DO something to get rich. Rich people believe you have to BE something to get rich.

"That's why people like Donald Trump go from millionaire to nine billion dollars in debt and come back richer than ever," he writes.

"While the masses are fixated on the doing and the immediate results of their actions, the great ones are learning and growing from every experience, whether it's a success or a failure, knowing their true reward is becoming a human success machine that eventually produces outstanding results."

10. Average people believe you need money to make money. Rich people use other people's money.

Linear thought might tell people to make money in order to earn more, but Siebold says the rich aren't afraid to fund their future from other people's pockets.

"Rich people know not being solvent enough to personally afford something is not relevant. The real question is, 'Is this worth buying, investing in, or pursuing?'" he writes.

 11. Average people believe the markets are driven by logic and strategy. Rich people know they're driven by emotion and greed.

Investing successfully in the stock market isn't just about a fancy math formula.

"The rich know that the primary emotions that drive financial markets are fear and greed, and they factor this into all trades and trends they observe," Siebold writes.

"This knowledge of human nature and its overlapping impact on trading give them strategic advantage in building greater wealth through leverage."

12. Average people live beyond their means. Rich people live below theirs.

"Here's how to live below your means and tap into the secret wealthy people have used for centuries: Get rich so you can afford to," he writes.

"The rich live below their means, not because they're so savvy, but because they make so much money that they can afford to live like royalty while still having a king's ransom socked away for the future.

13. Average people teach their children how to survive. Rich people teach their kids to get rich.

Rich parents teach their kids from an early age about the world of "haves" and "have-nots," Siebold says. Even he admits many people have argued that he's supporting the idea of elitism.

He disagrees.

"[People] say parents are teaching their kids to
look down on the masses because they're poor. This isn't true," he writes. "What they're teaching their kids is to see the world through the eyes of objective reality––the way society really is."
If children understand wealth early on, they'll be more likely to strive for it later in life.

14. Average people let money stress them out. Rich people find peace of mind in wealth.

The reason wealthy people earn more wealth is that they're not afraid to admit that money can solve most problems, Siebold says.
"[The middle class] sees money as a never-ending necessary evil that must be endured as part of life. The world class sees money as the great liberator, and with enough of it, they are able to purchase financial peace of mind."
15. Average people would rather be entertained than educated. Rich people would rather be educated than entertained.

While the rich don't put much stock in furthering wealth through formal education, they appreciate the power of learning long after college is over, Siebold says.

"Walk into a wealthy person's home and one of the first things you'll see is an extensive library of books they've used to educate themselves on how to become more successful," he writes.

"The middle class reads novels, tabloids and entertainment magazines."

16. Average people think rich people are snobs. Rich people just want to surround themselves with like-minded people.

The negative money mentality poisoning the middle class is what keeps the rich hanging out with the rich, he says.

"[Rich people] can't afford the messages of doom and gloom," he writes. "This is often misinterpreted by the masses as snobbery.

Labeling the world class as snobs is another way the middle class finds to feel better bout themselves and their chosen path of mediocrity."

17. Average people focus on saving. Rich people focus on earning.

Siebold theorizes that the wealthy focus on what they'll gain by taking risks, rather than how to save what they have.

"The masses are so focused on clipping coupons and living frugally they miss major opportunities," he writes.

"Even in the midst of a cash flow crisis, the rich reject the nickle and dime thinking of the masses. They are the masters of focusing their mental energy where it belongs: on the big money."

18. Average people play it safe with money. Rich people know when to take risks.

"Leverage is the watchword of the rich," Siebold writes.

"Every investor loses money on occasion, but the world class knows no matter what happens, they will aways be able to earn more."
19. Average people love to be comfortable. Rich people find comfort in uncertainty.

For the most part, it takes guts to take the risks necessary to make it as a millionaire––a challenge most middle class thinkers aren't comfortable living with.

"Physical, psychological, and emotional comfort is the primary goal of the middle class mindset," Siebold writes.

World class thinkers learn early on that becoming a millionaire isn't easy and the need for comfort can be devastating. They learn to be comfortable while operating in a state of ongoing uncertainty."

20. Average people never make the connection between money and health. Rich people know money can save your life.

While the middle class squabbles over the virtues of Obamacare and their company's health plan, the super wealthy are enrolled in a super elite "boutique medical care" association, Siebold says.

"They pay a substantial yearly membership fee that guarantees them 24-hour access to a private physician who only serves a small group of members," he writes.

"Some wealthy neighborhoods have implemented this strategy and even require the physician to live in the neighborhood.
21. Average people believe they must choose between a great family and being rich. Rich people know you can have it all.

The idea the wealth must come at the expense of family time is nothing but a "cop-out", Siebold says.

"The masses have been brainwashed to believe it's an either/or equation," he writes. "The rich know you can have anything you want if you approach the challenge with a mindset rooted in love and abundance."

From Steve Siebold, author of "How Rich People Think
By Mandi Woodruff
Business Insider
Tue, 4 Sep, 2012

Wednesday, September 5, 2012


Apart from money that is earmarked for bequests or the odd big ticket purchase, a sound strategy is to annuitize all of one’s wealth at about age 75. To understand why, let’s look at the minimum payout at age 75 under a RRIF. If the RRIF held $100,000 in assets at age 75, the minimum amount that would have to be withdrawn that year is $7,850. Many retirees are upset about this because they feel the minimum withdrawal rules force them to deplete their assets too quickly, especially in the current low-interest rate environment.
By contrast, an annuity that is purchased at age 75 with a single premium of $100,000 would produce annual income of about $10,000, in spite of low interest rates. Not only is this about $2,200 more than the minimum RRIF income, the annuity is payable for life and thus removes any chance your money will run out too soon. More income and less worry is a hard combination to beat.

By Lawrence Ian Geller,
For Advisors Only
September 5, 2012


By Fred Vettese
Financial Post
September 5, 2012


Dan Zwicker
Posted September 5, 2012

At age 75 we have an absolute need for the certainty of our income for the next 20+- years.

We have no need for market volatility based upon fear or greed.

The annuity is among the most sophisticated financial instruments in North America.

Our mindset at 75 must move from ‘making a killing’ to guaranteeing an income – for the rest of our lives.

The actuarial brilliance of the annuity is that it does just that.

It guarantees that our income will show up in our bank account every month without fail for the rest of our life no matter what happens globally.

Next to good health and the love of familiy there is nothing more precious than the lifetime certainty of our income.

The 1% have that certainty!

The 99% can have it!

The financial services industry has a professional and moral obligation to make sure it happens.

Dan Zwicker.

Daniel H. Zwicker, Principal
B.Sc. (Hons.) P.Eng. CFP CLU CH.F.C. CFSB

Professional Engineers Ontario
Certified Financial Planner
Chartered Life Underwriter
Chartered Financial Consultant
Chartered Financial Services Broker

Bus: 416-726-2427

Daniel H. Zwicker, CFP Blog::
FFCG Blog:
Beyond Risk Blog:

first financial consulting group inc.
4261 Highway Seven Suite 238
Markham , Ontario L3R 9W6

Capital Risk Management
Lifetime Sustainable Income
Strategic Wealth Management

Specialists in Advanced Life Insurance Applications and
Lifetime Sustainable Retirement Planning Solutions

New clients are accepted by referral only

‘Raising The Bar’

Thursday, August 23, 2012


Most Canadian 50-somethings plan to work in retirement to offset low savings: poll

The national online survey, conducted last month for CIBC by Leger Marketing, found that Quebec residents were least likely to say they'll work after retirement, at 47 per cent.

TORONTO - A new survey of Canadians in their 50s found that 53 per cent of those polled said they plan to continue working after retiring in their 60s, in many cases to supplement their income.

The national online survey, conducted last month for CIBC (TSX:CM.TO - News) by Leger Marketing, found that Quebec respondents were least likely to say they'll work after retirement, at 47 per cent.

Manitoba and Saskatchewan respondents were the most likely to say they planned to work after retirement, at 59 per cent.

Atlantic Canada (54 per cent), Ontario (55 per cent), Alberta (57 per cent) and British Columbia (49 per cent) were closer to the national average of 53 per cent.

Meanwhile, about 29 per cent of those surveyed said they were not sure if they would work after retirement, while 14 per cent said they would definitely not work post retirement.

According to the survey, almost half of today’s 50-59 year olds polled have less than $100,000 saved for retirement and many planned to use employment income in retirement to make up for lack of savings.

“The retirement landscape is shifting as baby boomers reach traditional retirement age with a smaller nest egg than they expected to have,” said Christina Kramer, executive vice-president, retail distribution and channel strategy at CIBC.

“Many Canadians are now planning to draw on multiple sources of income including employment to fund their retirement, and that makes getting advice about how to manage your income, savings, and investments even more important.”

Overall, the survey found that of those who plan to keep on working, 37 per cent said they would do so part time.

And only one third of those who plan to work post retirement said they would do so just for the money.

Two-thirds — or 67 per cent — saw working either as a way to either stay socially active or that they just found work enjoyable and wanted to stay involved in the workforce in some capacity.

The average age at which the respondents plan to retire varied by region, with those in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Manitoba and Saskatchewan looking to retire earliest at age 62. Ontarians were next at 63 and followed by those in Alberta and British Columbia at age 64.

CIBC says results are based on a poll conducted online by Leger Marketing via the LegerWeb panel that it says comprises more than 400,000 households. It said the poll used a sample of 805 respondents aged 50 to 59 and was conducted between July 5 and July 8.

The polling industry's professional body, the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, says online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

By Hugh McKenna

The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press

20 Aug, 2012


Saturday, August 11, 2012


The Ryan Choice

Paul Ryan is the reverse of Sarah Palin. She was all right-wing flash without much substance. He’s all right-wing substance without much flash.

Ryan is not a firebrand. He’s not smarmy. He doesn’t ooze contempt for opponents or ridicule those who disagree with him. In style and tone, he doesn’t even sound like an ideologue – until you listen to what he has to say.

It’s here — in Ryan’s views and policy judgments — we find the true ideologue. More than any other politician today, Paul Ryan exemplifies the social Darwinism at the core of today’s Republican Party: Reward the rich, penalize the poor, let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog.

Ryan’s views are crystallized in the budget he produced for House Republicans last March as chairman of the House Budget committee. That budget would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the next decade. The biggest cuts would be in Medicaid, which provides healthcare for the nation’s poor – forcing states to drop coverage for an estimated 14 million to 28 million low-income people, according to the non-partisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Ryan’s budget would also reduce food stamps for poor families by 17 percent ($135 billion) over the decade, leading to a significant increase in hunger – particularly among children. It would also reduce housing assistance, job training, and Pell grants for college tuition.

In all, 62 percent of the budget cuts proposed by Ryan would come from low-income programs.

The Ryan plan would also turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won’t possibly keep up with rising health-care costs – thereby shifting those costs on to seniors.

At the same time, Ryan would provide a substantial tax cut to the very rich – who are already taking home an almost unprecedented share of the nation’s total income. Today’s 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together.

Ryan’s views are pure social Darwinism. As William Graham Sumner, the progenitor of social Darwinism in America, put it in the 1880s: “Civilization has a simple choice.” It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Is this Mitt Romney’s view as well?

Some believe Romney chose Ryan solely in order to drum up enthusiasm on the right. Since most Americans have already made up their minds about whom they’ll vote for, and the polls show Americans highly polarized – with an almost equal number supporting Romney as Obama — the winner will be determined by how many on either side take the trouble to vote. So in picking Ryan, Romney is motivating his rightwing base to get to the polls, and pull everyone else they can along with them.

But there’s reason to believe Romney also agrees with Ryan’s social Darwinism. Romney accuses President Obama of creating an “entitlement society” and thinks government shouldn’t help distressed homeowners but instead let the market “hit the bottom.” And although Romney has carefully avoided specifics in his own economic plan, he has said he’s “very supportive” of Ryan’s budget plan. “It’s a bold and exciting effort, an excellent piece of work, very much needed … very consistent with what I put out earlier.”

Romney hasn’t put out much but the budget he’s proposed would, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, throw ten million low-income people off the benefits rolls for food stamps or cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or both.

At the same time, Romney wants to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, reduce corporate income taxes, and eliminate the estate tax. These tax reductions would increase the incomes of people earning more than $1 million a year by an average of $295,874 annually, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Oh, did I say that Romney and Ryan also want to repeal President Obama’s healthcare law, thereby leaving fifty million Americans without health insurance?

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest… the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

The social Darwinism of that era also undermined all efforts to build a more broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the twentieth century did America reject social Darwinism. We created a large middle class that became the engine of our economy and our democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward, often through no fault of their own.

We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods – public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health – that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on our own in a competitive contest for survival.

But choosing Ryan, Romney has raised for the nation the starkest of choices: Do we want to return to that earlier time, or are we willing and able to move forward — toward a democracy and an economy that works for us all?

Robert Reich

Thursday, February 9, 2012


Here’s a bit of advice if you haven't saved a dime for your retirement: Try it out

"I think if you want to have a sense of what that lifestyle is going to be like you should practise living on it now," says author Gail Vaz-Oxlade, a strong proponent of living debt-free and saving. "Forget about whether you can enjoy it, see what you'll have to do to make it work:'

The reality is if you want to stop working completely at 65 and retire, you are going to have to make some tough lifestyle choices if you are just surviving on government money.

Consider the maximum you can get from Canada Pension Plan is $986.67 a month per person. Add in $540.12 for Old Age Security. You could qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement but once you start coupling up, it gets clawed back. 

Sure there's not much tax, if any, in most provinces on the money, but try living on it. Median household expenditure in Canada is about $58,000, according to Statistics Canada. For couples over 65, the median drops to $39,000. And let's not forget that $986.67 is the maximum amount; the average Canadian receives only $512.64 monthly from CPP.

You really need to see what it's going to be like when you are old and poor

"If you try living on that much money right now and find it's impossible, maybe it's enough motivation for you to split the difference and put some of that money back in your savings and not spend all of it on crap now:' Ms. Vaz-Oxlade says.

She says people need a reality check to understand that if they are spending money on "37 versions of cellphone plans you have between now and when you retire;' that will come with a price.

"It's not going to mean much when you open up your fridge and all you are looking at is a bag of milk and some yogurt and that's all you have until the end of the week," she says. "You really need to see what it's going to be like when you are old and poor:'

How will it play out? Thke a look at the cellphone. While the average Canadian household spends about $619 a year on the devices, for a couple over 65 it drops to $246 a year. Food drops to $6,853 a year, or about $132 a week. About $1,238 a year goes for restaurants, or $24 a week - so one trip to Swiss Chalet a week for the average senior couple.

Compare that to what the average couple without children spends. They allocate $728 for those cellphones and $8,860 for food, of which $1,850 goes for restaurants - that's a few extra nights out.

Ms. Vaz-Oxlade is the first to admit she doesn't know anybody who has actually tried her experiment. " I don't know what they are going to do," she says of people with no savings.

One thing they'll do is sell the family home and downsize or get a reverse mortgage. Going from a big city to a small town could cut your costs but that won't work for all Canadians, Ms. Vaz-Oxlade says.

"You have to eat into the principal.

We like to use the big Toronto numbers for the sale of your home and live off the income story. but that's not reality for most people;' she says.

The average house in Canada sold for $363,346 in 2011, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association - meaning a sizeable amount of equity for retirement. The problem is more and more seniors still have some sort of mortgage debt on retirement or other debt like credit cards or consumer loans.

Seniors with debt are becoming more of an issue, says Scott Hannah, executive of the Credit Counselling Societyfinds. He says if you haven't saved it means everything is on the table.

Are you going to still have two cars or even one car? Are you going to stay in your home? Are you going to be able to help your children?" he says.

The biggest thing seniors might have to give up is the end of their dreams. "The future just isn't that rosy," Mr. Hannah says. "They have to give up some of their lifelong goals they had in retirement in terms of activities, goals or places they wanted to travel to."

Fee-based certified financial planner Jason Heath of E.E.S. Financial Services was looking at the issue for a family friend who recently came to him with the problem of no retirement savings, no pension and no other source of income - just what the government will pay out.

"it's short of what the average Canadian will spend. If you fall in the situation of having no retirement savings and you live in Toronto, you might have to look to relocate;' Mr. Heath says, adding that the move from the big city to small town applies across the country. "Even if you do that, it's going to be awfully tight and a grim forecast for their golden years."

He says the other alternative, and one he sees happening more, is parents turning to their children for support. Instead of the child living in the basement until his 30s, suddenly the parents are the ones hanging out in an apartment suite of their children's homes.

Why not? Instead of paying $1200 for an apartment, you pay your kids $500 to move in with them," Mr. Heath says. "It's a bit of a way of getting repaid for all the diapers being changed, and maybe it's only fair for all the kids who continued to stay home."

The CFP notes a single person is going to have even tougher problems trying to live off that money because he would not be splitting some major costs like housing while doubling up on government benefits. "If you are going to retire with no savings, you better at least have a partner;' he says,

Mr. Heath says even if you are just five years from retirement, it's probably worth trying to do something - and that includes downsizing in advance of your employment disappearing. "You realize you are going to have a shortfall so why not reduce your costs to cover the shortfall in the retirement?"

The other solution, of course, is to keep working. "Go to McDonald's and there are a lot of jobs taken on by retirees," he says.

Of course, if you are still working, consulting or doing something else you are paid for, that's not really retirement, says Craig Alexander, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank. But it is increasingly becoming a way to survive.

There are some people who actually may see their standard of living go up in retirement if they haven't saved. But they are the minority and they most likely have spent their lives living close to the poverty line, Mr. Alexander says.

"Canada has one of the lowest rates of poverty in the industrialized world, and One of the reasons is because of OAS and GIS, which provide a minimum floor which is 'enough to keep you out of poverty, but not much more;' he says.

Garry Marr
Financial Post
02 08 2012