Bertie the champion of the world

paddyland · 12-02-2010 3:56pm

Laminations wrote: »

You wanna forget the past? Not a chance

Not a chance is right. Until people realise how despotic and self centred the FF party are, this country will NEVER move forward. It will keep going round and round in circles, revisiting the same false booms and crippling busts, as the greedy grab mercilessly at whatever they can, slowly bleeding the country to a dry husk.

You will NEVER be let forget the past, lest we don't learn from it.

Shea O'Meara · 12-02-2010 4:11pm

It is socially normal to want to buy a home for your family. If prices are (artificially) inflated you've not much option other than to buy or wait it out, see if prices come down. If you buy, you've no choice but to buy over your head. If you rent, you're lining the pockets of a property investor. Either way you're keeping the prices high and justifying such prices to the market place.
Now, in that environment, how can we cast any blame or label as greedy, a young couple, possibly with a kid on the way, who want a home? If the government are telling you it's all gravy for the forseeable future, why bother waiting it out, buying now seems as good a time as any, as house prices just seem to go up. Then you have the financial institutions making mortgages more accesible on top of that. I see no greed there.

In an environment were everyone 'in the know' is telling you how great our economy is and all media formats are yapping on about investing in property at home and/or abroad, every second advert is a financial institution of some form offering money, even if your credit is shot....I can see how some people bought in over their heads. Yes they are adults, but we need to consider the environment of the time also.

Each political party has their own mandate. It is only right that they be seen to have their own mind, their own view on things by the electorate.
When an election draws near, you will most likely see the likes of FG and Labour becoming more chumy. Like all parties, they are looking for support/votes. Why on earth, with no election slated would Labour, upon hearing Enda spout say, 'Yeah, what he said.' or vice versa 'FG are with Eamon!'? Do we really expect an opposing opposition shadow government to form before we say, 'oh now there's an opposition'. Get real.

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 4:14pm

paddyland wrote: »

Are you suggesting I should have bought a house I COULD afford?

Of course.

I seemed to miss that option when my turn came.

Who said anything about everybody having a turn?

This is a free market economy (or ought to be under regular conditions). Nobody is just entitled to "a turn" of a mortgage - it's thinking like that which is partially responsible for our financial difficulties as they stand.

For every €5,000 I saved towards a deposit, prices went up €50,000 under FF, the speculator's party. It would have been nice if they had left a few affordable houses for those of us who simply wanted somewhere to live.

They (Fianna Fail) didn't go around hijacking houses.

It was regular people in the streets - shopkeepers, clerks, teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses and waiters and waitresses who bought these houses - at inflated prices - not Fianna Fáil. Nobody was forced to buy a thing.

I could have handed over all my earnings for better accommodation, and saved nothing. Why should I hand away all my hard earned salary to some FF voting landlord who won't even fix a leaking roof?

This is about your personal decisions. Fianna Fáil are not answerable for the fact that you lived in a rundown apartment. They're not responsible for you landlord. You could have gone to live under the roof of a left wing red-flag-bearing protectionist if you so wished.

At the moment, I am handing away all my hard earned salary to a bank.

You bought a new car and you took out a mortgage.

These are your personal choices.

But at least I have the promise of some day not having to pay any more. Do you think I trust FF enough to spend the rest of my life paying rent, living in a society dominated by a party of greedy, selfish property speculators, with no vested interest only to keep pushing rents up, and up, and up, for the rest of my life?

Rents are going down and down, and down.

Except some of us never saw Celtic Tiger wealth to spend, and got the government somebody else voted for.

Firstly, don't blame other people if you choose to pour money into a mortgage in what remains a property market lacking in significant value.

What do you mean the Government that somebody else voted for? The majority of the people in this society voted for the current administration, that's how democracy works. You have an alternative to that voting system?

Laminations wrote:

You wanna forget the past?

No. Nobody is saying forget it. We're saying move on and stop dwelling on it.

Shea O'Meara · 12-02-2010 4:16pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But none of our economic growth, and none of our current successes as a recovering economy are down to the hopeless whingery of some elements of this society, who frown in a blue funk, always looking backwards into other people's mistakes.

Get over it.

We don't look back enough. If I had a penny for every time Fianna Fail f***ed up or a number of them were caught with their paws in the public cookie jar, only to then tell the people, that was then, we've cleaned house...I'd have, well my finances would be better than our nation's currently are.

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 4:19pm

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

We don't look back enough.

I think that must be the first time I've come across that statement in relation to Irish society. A new first.

If I had a penny for every time Fianna Fail f***ed up or a number of them were caught with their paws in the public cookie jar, only to then tell the people, that was then, we've cleaned house...I'd have, well my finances would be better than our nation's currently are.

There is a difference between learning from past failures and constantly whingeing about failures.

We have failed to learn from past failures by continuously voting Fianna Fáil. We have to reflect upon ourselves for that and learn from it. It's the constant barstool and taxicab whining... and insisting that Joe Public never saw a celtic tiger... that I am talking about.

Laminations · 12-02-2010 4:29pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Of course.

This is a free market economy (or ought to be under regular conditions). Nobody is just entitled to "a turn" of a mortgage - it's thinking like that which is partially responsible for our financial difficulties as they stand.

A free market economy is governed by supply and demand. The oversupply of houses was encouraged (and then hidden from the public) creating a market in which demand far outweighed supply and house prices rocketed.

Its the governments job to regulate here.

And the people who got 'greedy' will be paying for the rest of their lives so lets stop this nonsense of personal responsibility. I didn't get greedy and I'll be paying (for NAMA amongst other things) for a very long time too. What are the consequences for the government? The regulator? The men in charge of the banks?

Nada. Anger may not be a policy but it is justified. Voting FF out is a policy.

Laminations · 12-02-2010 4:33pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

There is a difference between learning from past failures and constantly whingeing about failures.

Agreed. Now tell me what hallelujajordan or wicklowwonder or any of the other supporters of FF have learnt?? The problem is people aren't learning. I wouldn't be talking about the past if there was no debate about it.

I didnt vote FF, I saw elements of the celtic tiger and they never bought my vote. If the public overspent and got greedy the banks will chase them down. Next election I intend to chase the government down. Thats not a whinge, its a promise

hallelujajordan · 12-02-2010 5:17pm

Laminations wrote: »

I didnt vote FF, I saw elements of the celtic tiger and they never bought my vote. If the public overspent and got greedy the banks will chase them down. Next election I intend to chase the government down. Thats not a whinge, its a promise

And you are fully entitled to do so . . . .

But you guys all seem to have a real issue with understanding the concept of collective responsibility. . . .

As I have said on here a hundred times . . the country overspent, the country got greedy and the country continued to return FF to government because the country liked what they were getting. . The country bought more 4x4's, built more conservatories and went on more foreign holidays. .

That's what democracy is and the downside of democracy is that the country also has to take responsibility when things don't go as planned . .

It doesn't mean that Laminations or anymore or Liam Byrne are responsible and I can understand all of your personal testimonies about why you are not responsible but this does not diminish the concept of collective responsibility one iota !

At least Red Marauder and I, while having completely confliting political positions, can understand the role that we personally and society generally played over the last decade. . .

Now tell me what hallelujajordan or wicklowwonder or any of the other supporters of FF have learnt?? The problem is people aren't learning. I wouldn't be talking about the past if there was no debate about it.

I have learned that there is a need to change things within Fianna Fail . . that there is a need to bring about real change in terms of the standards we expect from our representatives. It is not unreasonable to want to change that from the inside.

More recently, I have learned that FF are the only political power who have the strength and courage to make the tough decisions required to improve our situation . . and opinion poll results are showing that the public in general are learning that too. .

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 5:17pm

Laminations wrote: »

A free market economy is governed by supply and demand. The oversupply of houses was encouraged (and then hidden from the public) creating a market in which demand far outweighed supply and house prices rocketed.

Its the governments job to regulate here.

That's a question of economic philosophy. I don't think it's a government's job to regulate property prices, but that's another issue. The thing is questions are being asked about regulation, it is an ongoing debate.

The point is, what about the consumer? The consumer is not some blameless pawn in all of this, the consumer was the one who in reality drove up the house prices. No amount of Government policy can force anybody to buy a converted shoebox in Harolds Cross for a million quid.

The adult consumer shouldn't need a mother figure tugging at his jersey telling him what he can or cannot afford. We have to stop relying on 'Mother Government' for that into the future.

And the people who got 'greedy' will be paying for the rest of their lives so lets stop this nonsense of personal responsibility.

It's not nonsense, it is right and proper that they should spend all of this time repaying the money they committed to pay.

Voting FF out is a policy.

Sure, the point is you can be in favour of this policy and still not bury your head in the sand about the blame Joe Public deserves for his part in this mess.

Laminations · 12-02-2010 5:35pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

A

But you guys all seem to have a real issue with understanding the concept of collective responsibility. . . .

As I have said on here a hundred times . . the country overspent, the country got greedy and the country continued to return FF to government because the country liked what they were getting. . The country bought more 4x4's, built more conservatories and went on more foreign holidays.

I understand what you mean by collective responsibility and I agree. But I dont see it as an issue. The banks will hound the 'collective' for all the mortgage money they are owed. There is no NAMA for the 'greedy' house buyers, collective responsibility is being looked after.

I dont see how I can take any part of the collective responsibility for voting in FF to power, I never did. But you can take some responsibility here, so rather than telling me about the collective responsibility we share why dont you vote responsibly in the next election.

I agree, 'we' as a country voted them in - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, whats the excuse?

Just to be clear, I do realise there needs to be collective responsibility for the past, the past is not what frustrates me most, my main problem here is not that people intend to make the same mistakes in the future. One of the faults we are collectively responsible for is voting in FF. You wanna continue doing this.

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 5:41pm

Laminations wrote: »

I agree, 'we' as a country voted them in - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, whats the excuse?

I dunno. Cos we voted for them three times.

There is no NAMA for the 'greedy' house buyers, collective responsibility is being looked after.

If it wasn't for a lot of willing housebuyers to there wouldn't be a need for NAMA.

Nobody is letting the developers off the hook, but they were providing a product for which there was consumer demand.

Laminations · 12-02-2010 5:44pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Sure, the point is you can be in favour of this policy and still not bury your head in the sand about the blame Joe Public deserves for his part in this mess.

You are missing my point. Joe public deserves blame, I agree (somewhat). Joe public WILL pay for their personal debts for the rest of their lives, thats the reality and its fair - that is whats called taking responsibility.

Should Joe public have to pay for other peoples and the governments recklessness? Well that is also the reality but it is totally unfair.
The people will have to take responsibility or lose their homes etc.
What I am asking is where is the governments responsibility?
Where is Berties responsibility?
He doesn't have to reduce his pension, he has the gall to apply and receive a tax exemption....the man has no tax clearance cert!!!

I dont have my head in the sand, I'm merely asking for fairness.

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 5:52pm

Laminations wrote: »

You are missing my point. Joe public deserves blame, I agree (somewhat). Joe public WILL pay for their personal debts for the rest of their lives, thats the reality and its fair - that is whats called taking responsibility.

No - not everyone will. Look at these figures, mortgages are defaulting left right and centre, Joe Public is contributing significantly to this and will have to have his mortgage ultimately dealt with by public funds, just like the developers
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0116/1224262472935.html

Should Joe public have to pay for other peoples and the governments recklessness?

Yes - because in many cases his recklessness is being paid for by businesses.

What I am asking is where is the governments responsibility?
Where is Berties responsibility?

I'm not here defending the Government, I just think there is a very silent partner in blame in this whole debate.
It's the same in the media, the regular over-borrowing consumer is being allowed to shrink into the wings in order to please the public.

fontanalis · 12-02-2010 6:08pm

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

It is socially normal to want to buy a home for your family. If prices are (artificially) inflated you've not much option other than to buy or wait it out, see if prices come down. If you buy, you've no choice but to buy over your head. If you rent, you're lining the pockets of a property investor. Either way you're keeping the prices high and justifying such prices to the market place.
Now, in that environment, how can we cast any blame or label as greedy, a young couple, possibly with a kid on the way, who want a home? If the government are telling you it's all gravy for the forseeable future, why bother waiting it out, buying now seems as good a time as any, as house prices just seem to go up. Then you have the financial institutions making mortgages more accesible on top of that. I see no greed there.

Give me a break, you'e almost bodering on rent is dead money. social normality for a while wasn't a house for your family but a step on the property ladder to flog off and get rich. No one was forced to buy anything,

oh well , okay · 12-02-2010 6:20pm

If it wasn't for a lot of willing housebuyers to there wouldn't be a need for NAMA.

Nobody is letting the developers off the hook, but they were providing a product for which there was consumer demand.

Isn't NAMA exclusively for developmental loans ? NAMA is here precisely because their wasn't enough willing house buyers , it's here because developers and bankers got far greedier than the public did . It's here because they were providing a product that there was no consumer demand for .

paddyland · 12-02-2010 6:33pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

'Are you suggesting I should have bought a house I COULD afford?' Of course.

Well would you mind telling me then, where in Ireland I could have found a house I could 'afford' in 2002, when prices were skyrocketing, because most of the market was being snapped up by greedy investors, intent on pushing rents further through the roof, leaving nothing for ordinary people who simply wanted a small place to live, away from the clutches of these unregulated and profiteering landlords?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Who said anything about everybody having a turn?

This is a free market economy (or ought to be under regular conditions). Nobody is just entitled to "a turn" of a mortgage - it's thinking like that which is partially responsible for our financial difficulties as they stand.

So everybody is NOT entitled to a shot at getting on their feet. The housing market should be reserved for the wealthy, who can AFFORD it, and not for the ordinary guy, on whose rentals the wealthy rely for much of their exorbitant living.

Follow that line to it's logical conclusion, and eventually all the property in the country is sown up among a small coterie of extremely wealthy people, probably living in secure compounds under 24 hour protection. Sure that's why the Irish wanted rid of the English for centuries. Another case of learning nothing from the past.

It makes logical sense that if all the property in the country is kept at a reasonable, affordable price for everybody, then the advantage of the wealthy is eroded. By complaining about ordinary people buying houses they couldn't 'afford,' you are implying that only those who could 'afford' them were entitled to buy them, the market protecting the wealthy at the expense of the majority. THAT'S your whole market ideology at work there, protecting the haves from the have nots.

The whole purpose of government should be to bring a semblence of balance into the equation, keep the worst excesses of the market in check through regulation, not feed those excesses, profit from them, and make them drastically more pronounced, as FF The Bertie Party did.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Rents are going down and down, and down.

Of course they are now, Jesus Christ, that's one of the few positive results of this screaming hole in the economy FF dragged us into. DON'T even BEGIN to use that as a justification for anything. Those rents will go up, and up, and UP, the first chance the speculators get. Isn't it bloody scandalously high rents that are tearing the heart out of small and medium enterprise in this country at the moment? Where are their rent reductions? Jesus.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Nobody is saying forget it. We're saying move on and stop dwelling on it.

Translation: Stop saying bad things about FF and FG, you're embarrassing them. Ha ha, you must be joking!

Shea O'Meara · 12-02-2010 6:49pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Give me a break, you'e almost bodering on rent is dead money. social normality for a while wasn't a house for your family but a step on the property ladder to flog off and get rich. No one was forced to buy anything,

No, if you intened to buy, you could or wait it out, rent. I did not say anything close to renting being dead money.
I don't know anybody who bought a house just to do it up and flog it. I do however know a lot of people living way outside Dublin in various counties because they couldn't afford to live near work/family/friends.
As for 'forced to buy', I'm saying if someone wanted or felt they needed to buy, they couldn't exactly pick up a cheap home up the road.

Liam Byrne · 12-02-2010 7:00pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Give me a break, you'e almost bodering on rent is dead money. social normality for a while wasn't a house for your family but a step on the property ladder to flog off and get rich.

Some people seemed to view it that way, but I walked out of a bank one day when she used that disgusting phrase.

I didn't want any ladder.....I wanted a home.

paddyland · 12-02-2010 7:29pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Some people seemed to view it that way, but I walked out of a bank one day when she used that disgusting phrase.

I didn't want any ladder.....I wanted a home.

True FFers don't see 'homes,' all they see is ladders. Ladders is all they understand. Sure politics itself is just another ladder. You see it here among the soldier of destiny boys, they judge everyone by their own understandings of these things.

Red_Marauder · 12-02-2010 7:39pm

paddyland wrote: »

Well would you mind telling me then, where in Ireland I could have found a house I could 'afford' in 2002, when prices were skyrocketing,

If you can't afford it - don't buy it. Don't you get that?

You don't have to buy a house.

because most of the market was being snapped up by greedy investors,
intent on pushing rents further through the roof, leaving nothing for ordinary people

Why should they care in a free market?

Didn't you ever think you were pushing someone out of the market when you bid on a house? It doesn't matter whether you want to own a house for business reasons or personal reasons - you do not need to buy a house to survive. It is a personal decision. If anyone bought a house they couldn't afford - well that was pretty stupid wasn't it?

who simply wanted a small place to live, away from the clutches of these unregulated and profiteering landlords?

Give me a break... there's nothing wrong with profiteering. This economy runs on driving profits, you should be glad it does, or you might not have a job.

So everybody is NOT entitled to a shot at getting on their feet.

No. Everybody is NOT entitled to a mortgage, or a private house.

It makes logical sense that if all the property in the country is kept at a reasonable, affordable price for everybody, then the advantage of the wealthy is eroded.

What planet are you living on? You want a society rid of wealthy people? Who is going to pay your wages so that you can pay your mortgage? Your ideas are getting increasingly bizarre.

By complaining about ordinary people buying houses they couldn't 'afford,' you are implying that only those who could 'afford' them were entitled to buy them

Absolutely
Jesus thinking like yours is the exact reason why this country has had to face financial ruin. I would rather a country governed by the wealthy than people with ideas as crazy and nonsensical as yours.

Translation: Stop saying bad things about FF and FG, you're embarrassing them. Ha ha, you must be joking!

You really think policy makers in FF and FG give a damn about bad things said about the parties on boards.ie? Get real.

hallelujajordan · 12-02-2010 7:58pm

oh well , okay wrote: »

Isn't NAMA exclusively for developmental loans ? NAMA is here precisely because their wasn't enough willing house buyers , it's here because developers and bankers got far greedier than the public did . It's here because they were providing a product that there was no consumer demand for .

Fundamental misunderstanding there. . I bought my first house off the plans in 2000 and I had to queue for the chance to do it . . 3 years later I moved but was only successful in buying my current house after somebody else pulled out. . . To say there was no demand is naive in the extreme . . This demand was driven by the consumer who got wealthy and decided that property was the best type of investment. We (the consumer) drove the property bubble and the banks capitalised on it . . . Collective responsibility !

paddyland · 12-02-2010 8:01pm

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If you can't afford it - don't buy it. Don't you get that?

Ooo, you're getting very wound up now! And you're not even Fianna Fáil?

I'll just pick up one thing. I CAN afford my home. So can most of the other people who are struggling with their financial circumstances at the moment. They may have to forego a 4x4 or a conservatory, to use an analogy you seem to understand, but there are less who ACTUALLY cannot afford the home they live in.

However, it is a fact that most of us paid well over the odds for our homes. We had the choice not to, of course. But I wasn't waiting around to see prices double again, and maybe even AGAIN, while rents also doubled, and tripled in time. Don't try to tell me friends of FF, and FG too, wouldn't lap that up if it happened, the wealthy that is. That is the unregulated market at work. You might be surprised to know that I actually champion the free market, and private enterprise, and PROFITS, most of the time.

However, when people are struggling to find an affordable place to live, because others are making a profitable business out of one of life's necessities, we start sliding into a bad situation. When wealthy people get wealthier, by buying up all the stocks of a particular item, in this case houses, so that they can flog them on or rent them at exorbitantly outrageous prices, then there is something rotten in the barrel. In that case, market forces are running out of control, because it is creating a badly skewed balance in society, where one half have far too much wealth at the expense of others who are struggling. That is partly why we have grinding poverty in places such as Africa and Haiti. It's not the whole reason, but it's a bloody large part of it.

The government's part should not be to cripple the market. The government's part should be, however, a watchdog, a regulator, to step in and keep some semblence of balance to things. That is what government is, after all, GOVERNment.

What Fianna Fáil The Bertie Party did, far from regulating anything, they saw a selfish opportunity, and dived in and made things a hundred times worse! They were the greediest of the lot! And a generation or two of this country, both the guilty and otherwise, will pay for it, a very high penalty for just trying to get on with life.

I'll be all right, don't worry about me, I'll pay my bills, I won't saddle you with any of them. The reason I come on here, is because I see people posting how they 'admire' FF for creating this 'boom' that made a few people wealthy. Well pardon me, but I see precious little to admire!

paddyland · 12-02-2010 8:03pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Collective responsibility !

Ah yes, collective responsibility, where EVERYONE is responsible, but only the ordinary, vulnerable Joe Soap pays the penalty!

hallelujajordan · 12-02-2010 8:14pm

paddyland wrote: »

Ah yes, collective responsibility, where EVERYONE is responsible, but only the ordinary, vulnerable Joe Soap pays the penalty!

Who is this Joe Soap you all keep talking about ? This idea that poor old Joe Soap carries the can for the deeds of the wealthy is getting a bit jaded. .

Don't the top 10% of earners pay more than 40% of the taxes in Ireland . .?

Haven't the politicians taken a bigger income cut than anyone else in the public sector ?

Haven't the job cuts hit every level of society ?

Aren't the property speculators in up to their necks now that their interest-only mortgages have disappeared and rents have fallen through the floor ?

Aren't the developers loosing millions left, right and centre ?

Everyone's a bloody socialist all of a sudden. . where were the socialists during the boom times ?

Shea O'Meara · 12-02-2010 8:45pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Everyone's a bloody socialist all of a sudden. . where were the socialists during the boom times ?

Being told to go do something to themselves.
Anyway, Bertie is a socialist, or so he said.

trapsagenius · 12-02-2010 11:17pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who is this Joe Soap you all keep talking about ? This idea that poor old Joe Soap carries the can for the deeds of the wealthy is getting a bit jaded. .

Don't the top 10% of earners pay more than 40% of the taxes in Ireland . .?

Haven't the politicians taken a bigger income cut than anyone else in the public sector ?

Haven't the job cuts hit every level of society ?

Aren't the property speculators in up to their necks now that their interest-only mortgages have disappeared and rents have fallen through the floor ?

Aren't the developers loosing millions left, right and centre ?

Everyone's a bloody socialist all of a sudden. . where were the socialists during the boom times ?

Absolutely brilliant post.Sorry to get dragged off-topic but I'm getting sick and tired of the increasing criminalisation of the wealthy in the media.

fontanalis · 12-02-2010 11:45pm

trapsagenius wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant post.Sorry to get dragged off-topic but I'm getting sick and tired of the increasing criminalisation of the wealthy in the media.

No problem with people working hard to gain wealth, let's face it alot of "wealth" was got and squandered through what tent you went to at the Galway races.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 12:16am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

This demand was driven by the consumer who got wealthy and decided that property was the best type of investment. We (the consumer) drove the property bubble and the banks capitalised on it . . . Collective responsibility !

Won't actually fix your post, but the phrase should be "were beaten by vested interests into the mistaken belief that....."

And believe me, the banks and the Government were what drove the boom, using ridiculous phrases like "property ladder", and relying on stamp duty for day-to-day spending.

Not to mention the fact that - under Bertie's mate appointed as so-called "financial regulator" - the banks had a vested interest in ensuring that consumer prices were high so that the developer's loan was paid off, while they got the interest on the overpriced mortgage.

No, there's no way you're getting away with the lie that this was consumer-driven.

Even the sudden appearance of loads of unwanted houses last week - now that NAMA is landed on us - shows that the prices were being kept artificially high.

It's a basic human right to have a roof over your head, however with OTT rents and OTT mortgages, the average "Joe Soap" that you seem to view as a nuisance was caught between a rock and a hard place by all the vested interests......

.....the same vested interests that, courtesy of Ahern and his FF Government, are now being bailed out by the same Joe Soaps.

If you're such a fan of "collective responsibility" and the free market, how come you support one irresponsible section getting bailed out with our cash, while dismissing the rest ?

If those individuals who weren't as responsible as myself and others, and did take out OTT loans for OTT houses, weren't paying through the nose so that FF could give their cash to their mates, then I would have little sympathy for them.

But the fact that they are being put under pressure in order to bail out scum means that I do have sympathy for them.

And meanwhile, our former Taoiseach (the topic of this thread) wastes even more of our cash by delaying the tribunals my making up at least 5 ridiculous - and contradictory - stories, and hanging his secretary out to dry by ridiculing her testimony.

If our cash was spent well, responsibly, and ethically, then it's a case of "collective responsibility"; but when FF are wasting it or throwing it away, then it's THEIR FAULT.

oh well , okay · 13-02-2010 12:34am

Originally Posted by oh well , okay
Isn't NAMA exclusively for developmental loans ? NAMA is here precisely because their wasn't enough willing house buyers , it's here because developers and bankers got far greedier than the public did . It's here because they were providing a product that there was no consumer demand for .

Fundamental misunderstanding there. . I bought my first house off the plans in 2000 and I had to queue for the chance to do it . . 3 years later I moved but was only successful in buying my current house after somebody else pulled out. . . To say there was no demand is naive in the extreme . . This demand was driven by the consumer who got wealthy and decided that property was the best type of investment. We (the consumer) drove the property bubble and the banks capitalised on it . . . Collective responsibility !

Sorry but I'll have to disagree . 2000 was ten years ago , their may have been demand then but their certainly isn't now , that well dried up a long time ago.

NAMA is made up of developmental loans it does not cover individual mortgages . It only covers loans taken out by developers , how can consumers be responsible for this . Are "we" responsible because developers paid hugely over the odds for land that they failed to sell to "us" ?

I'll say it again NAMA only covers land bought for development . It does not cover individual mortgages , car loans or credit card debt.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0616/1224248898973.html

In this article the then interim director of NAMA surmises that the top 50 developers in the country are estimated to account for €40-50b of the NAMA debt . Is it really your position that the Irish public in general share responsibility for this debt ? Are you really that naive .

Red_Marauder · 13-02-2010 12:43am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who is this Joe Soap you all keep talking about ? This idea that poor old Joe Soap carries the can for the deeds of the wealthy is getting a bit jaded. .

Don't the top 10% of earners pay more than 40% of the taxes in Ireland . .?

Haven't the politicians taken a bigger income cut than anyone else in the public sector ?

Haven't the job cuts hit every level of society ?

Aren't the property speculators in up to their necks now that their interest-only mortgages have disappeared and rents have fallen through the floor ?

Aren't the developers loosing millions left, right and centre ?

Everyone's a bloody socialist all of a sudden. . where were the socialists during the boom times ?

To +1 a Fianna Fáiler worries me deeply, but I think it must be done.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 12:44am

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Won't actually fix your post, but the phrase should be "were beaten by vested interests into the mistaken belief that....."

So, the Irish public don't have a mind for themselves ? . . The country didn't start to view property as a short term investment that they could make a lot of money out of ? The banks and government are entirely to blame ? No-one has addressed my earlier analogy . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card ?

It's a basic human right to have a roof over your head, however with OTT rents and OTT mortgages, the average "Joe Soap" that you seem to view as a nuisance was caught between a rock and a hard place by all the vested interests......

When did I say I viewed Joe Soap as a nuisance. . Joe's a lovely fella, Sure isn't he gonna pay off my overpriced mortgage for me ?

If you're such a fan of "collective responsibility" and the free market, how come you support one irresponsible section getting bailed out with our cash, while dismissing the rest ?

Much as it suits the socialist agenda being peddled, the banks are not being bailed out because they are friends with Fianna Fail. Banks are being bailed out all over the world because to not bail them out would be incredibly detrimental to the economy.

If our cash was spent well, responsibly, and ethically, then it's a case of "collective responsibility"; but when FF are wasting it or throwing it away, then it's THEIR FAULT.

Even if I accepted this (which I don't) then the at the point which we returned FF to government (2002, 2007) it became collective responsibility again.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 12:51am

oh well , okay wrote: »

Sorry but I'll have to disagree . 2000 was ten years ago , their may have been demand then but their certainly isn't now , that well dried up a long time ago.

NAMA is made up of developmental loans it does not cover individual mortgages . It only covers loans taken out by developers , how can consumers be responsible for this . Are "we" responsible because developers paid hugely over the odds for land that they failed to sell to "us" ?

I'll say it again NAMA only covers land bought for development . It does not cover individual mortgages , car loans or credit card debt.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0616/1224248898973.html

In this article the then interim director of NAMA surmises that the top 50 developers in the country are estimated to account for €40-50b of the NAMA debt . Is it really your position that the Irish public in general share responsibility for this debt ? Are you really that naive .

Thank you for the NAMA lesson but I do already understand the principles. . . Guess what . . . that land that you are talking about that the developers borrowed money to buy . . . . they wanted to build houses and apartments on it . . . and it cost so much because there was huge demand for those houses . . . and that huge demand, was driven by consumers and speculators who began to treat property not as someone else described as "a basic right" but rather as an investment . . .

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:22am

paddyland wrote: »

Ah yes, collective responsibility, where EVERYONE is responsible, but only the ordinary, vulnerable Joe Soap pays the penalty!

Ah yes.....that old chestnut.

But don't dare point out that it applies to FF and their members (as I found out on another thread).

No, "collective responsibility" only applies when it works in FF's favour.

oh well , okay · 13-02-2010 11:33am

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Thank you for the NAMA lesson but I do already understand the principles. . . Guess what . . . that land that you are talking about that the developers borrowed money to buy . . . . they wanted to build houses and apartments on it . . . and it cost so much because there was huge demand for those houses . . . and that huge demand, was driven by consumers and speculators who began to treat property not as someone else described as "a basic right" but rather as an investment . . .

Come on ! is your stance really that because "we" stopped buying houses that "we" are collectively responsible for the over supply of development land that is left ? That to me is the heart of what you're saying .

Developers took a punt and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar , when the music stopped they were left without a chair and somehow you consider it "our" fault . I'd agree that NAMA isn't a bail out for most developers , I'd consider it another bail out for the bankers but I cannot agree that "we" share responsibility for NAMA .

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 12:57pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah yes.....that old chestnut.

But don't dare point out that it applies to FF and their members (as I found out on another thread).

No, "collective responsibility" only applies when it works in FF's favour.

Rubbish . . If you want to refer to views posted by me or others on different threads, do it accurately and post some links . . . I have fully accepted on other threads that Fianna Fail members and voters ought to accept collective responsibility for the policies FF implemented and their outcome . . I just happen to believe that the best way to accept that responsibility is to work to improve the situation (as we currently are). .

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:04pm

oh well , okay wrote: »

Come on ! is your stance really that because "we" stopped buying houses that "we" are collectively responsible for the over supply of development land that is left ? That to me is the heart of what you're saying .

How on earth is that what I am saying . . ?? ?? ??

All I am doing is pointing out the folly of your position that NAMA has everything to do with the developer and nothing to do with the consumer.

oh well, okay wrote:

Developers took a punt and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar , when the music stopped they were left without a chair and somehow you consider it "our" fault . I'd agree that NAMA isn't a bail out for most developers , I'd consider it another bail out for the bankers but I cannot agree that "we" share responsibility for NAMA .

We share responsibility for creating the consumer driven property and general good-time (4x4's, foreign holidays, conservatories . . .) bubble that post bursting left us with a need for NAMA .. .

And if we don't accept our collective role in that then sadly we will end up there again !

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:05pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Rubbish . . If you want to refer to views posted by me or others on different threads, do it accurately and post some links . . . I have fully accepted on other threads that Fianna Fail members and voters ought to accept collective responsibility for the policies FF implemented and their outcome . . I just happen to believe that the best way to accept that responsibility is to work to improve the situation (as we currently are). .

But if ye couldn't see [ ignored/dismissed ? ] the damage it was doing up to now, how do we know that ye can see any potential damage that ye are doing now (e.g. artificially inflating future house prices so that NAMA has a chance of breaking even, making Ireland uncompetitive) ?

And if you are being responsible and are behind your convictions, then FF would let the people decide whether to let you continue to reclaim the ground that your policies lost / damaged.

If you got voted back in (apart from me emigrating) then no-one could complain - democracy at work.

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:07pm

Liam Byrne, seeing as you are so fond of re-posting your questions . . this is the third time of asking . . .

hallelujajordan wrote:

So, the Irish public don't have a mind for themselves ? . . The country didn't start to view property as a short term investment that they could make a lot of money out of ? The banks and government are entirely to blame ? No-one has addressed my earlier analogy . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card ?

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:08pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

We share responsibility for creating the consumer driven property and general good-time (4x4's, foreign holidays, conservatories . . .) bubble that post bursting left us with a need for NAMA .. .

Can you please stop spouting this FF spin ? :mad:

I have:
A) No 4x4 - it's a 7 year old car

Two foreign holidays in 6 years (one courtesy of RyanAir which cost €10 more because of FF
C) No conservatory

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:10pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But if ye couldn't see [ ignored/dismissed ? ] the damage it was doing up to now, how do we know that ye can see any potential damage that ye are doing now (e.g. artificially inflating future house prices so that NAMA has a chance of breaking even, making Ireland uncompetitive) ?

And if you are being responsible and are behind your convictions, then FF would let the people decide whether to let you continue to reclaim the ground that your policies lost / damaged.

If you got voted back in (apart from me emigrating) then no-one could complain - democracy at work.

But we did get voted back in . . three times in a row while the policies you talk about were already in place . . but you still complain . . . and don't pretend you won't complain in May 2012 when FF win the next General Election. Even if you are posting from the airport

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:13pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

LSo, the Irish public don't have a mind for themselves ? . . The country didn't start to view property as a short term investment that they could make a lot of money out of ? The banks and government are entirely to blame ? No-one has addressed my earlier analogy . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card ?

1) Some people did, some people didn't. ALL are being punished by FF.

I already partially answered this by saying that all I wanted is a home.

2) The banks sent out letters for "pre-approved loans"; and while some of us [see #1] binned those, I can't see how you object to people taking money from this and still defend Ahern for taking what was offered to him

In addition, the Government was happy to take in the stamp duty and Ahern's mate as so-called Financial Regulator didn't act.....if there's a need for a Financial Regulator, then why did he not do his job ?

3) No, you can't. But you can't cripple everyone in one blow. By all means, do the right thing re the person who overspent, but likewise do the right thing for those who did the right thing and didn't

To continue your analogy - if you didn't overspend, but your neighbours did - should you have to pay ?

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:13pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Can you please stop spouting this FF spin ? :mad:

I have:
A) No 4x4 - it's a 7 year old car
Two foreign holidays in 6 years (one courtesy of RyanAir which cost €10 more because of FF
C) No conservatory

Good for you . . and can you please stop behaving like you represent the average Irish consumer . . Are you suggesting that

a) New car sales (including 4x4's) did not go through the roof over the last decade
b) The average Irish consumer did not go on more foreign holidays
c) More conservatories / house extensions were not built in the last decade than ever before ?

The sooner you start to look past yourself, the quicker you will be able to understand the concept of collective responsibility.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:14pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But we did get voted back in . . three times in a row while the policies you talk about were already in place . . but you still complain . . . and don't pretend you won't complain in May 2012 when FF win the next General Election. Even if you are posting from the airport

In black and white from an FF member : if you don't vote for us then we'll laugh at the thought of you emigrating.

So much for putting the country and its people before the party! :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:15pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

1) Some people did, some people didn't. ALL are being punished by FF.

I already partially answered this by saying that all I wanted is a home.

2) The banks sent out letters for "pre-approved loans"; and while some of us [see #1] binned those, I can't see how you object to people taking money from this and still defend Ahern for taking what was offered to him

In addition, the Government was happy to take in the stamp duty and Ahern's mate as so-called Financial Regulator didn't act.....if there's a need for a Financial Regulator, then why did he not do his job ?

3) No, you can't. But you can't cripple everyone in one blow. By all means, do the right thing re the person who overspent, but likewise do the right thing for those who did the right thing and didn't

To continue your analogy - if you didn't overspend, but your neighbours did - should you have to pay ?

You still haven't answered my question . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card?

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:15pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In black and white from an FF member : if you don't vote for us then we'll laugh at the thought of you emigrating.

So much for putting the country and its people before the party! :rolleyes:

Cheap shot . . and you know it !

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:16pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The sooner you start to look past yourself, the quicker you will be able to understand the concept of collective responsibility.

I'll repeat MY question.

If your neighbour overspends, is it fair that you have to pay ?

"collective responsibility" does not exist.

In fact, given that you choose to overlook all of FF's actions to date in evaluating whether or not they are competent, I don't even think you know the meaning of the word "responsibility".

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:17pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll repeat MY question.

If your neighbour overspends, is it fair that you have to pay ?

"collective responsibility" does not exist.

In fact, given that you choose to overlook all of FF's actions to date in evaluating whether or not they are competent, I don't even think you know the meaning of the word "responsibility".

I think I asked my question first . . I note this is the fifth time and you still haven't answered it ?

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:18pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question . . Can I blame the government when I overspend on my credit card?

Yes I did. Open your eyes.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

3) No, you can't. But you can't cripple everyone in one blow. By all means, do the right thing re the person who overspent, but likewise do the right thing for those who did the right thing and didn't

As for the "cheap shot".....I didn't misrepresent. I replied / reacted to precisely what you posted.

Liam Byrne · 13-02-2010 1:20pm

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think I asked my question first . . I note this is the fifth time and you still haven't answered it ?

Incorrect (as proven above)

But to get us back on topic, I wish I hadn't......not answering fives time is a tactic that works so well for Ahern.

I wonder did you hound him as much for an answer ?

hallelujajordan · 13-02-2010 1:22pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes I did. Open your eyes.
.

Apologies, missed that . . so I can't blame the government if I overspend on my credit card, but I can blame the government if I take out a mortgage that I clearly cannot afford or accept a pre-approved loan and take it down to Liffey Valley Renault to buy a new car that I don't need . . . Is that your position ?

Bertie the champion of the world

Comments