2.65 Bn loss for AIB

blackiebest

This country is fooked, Until the likes of Fitzpatrick are behind bars we should all default on these shower of cnuts. Note front page of the indo with lead being the 700million AIB loaned to a greek fruadster, meanwhile they will pursue Joe Public out of his home all the way to a mental hospital, well IMO Joe Public should stop taking it in the tight one from these guys and fight back. How many of these bankers are shouldering even 10% of a pay cut?

Any other country these guys would be in Jail, pricks!

Sorry rant over:mad:

murphaph

blackiebest wrote: »

Any other country these guys would be in Jail, pricks!

Three words: Bank of Scotland. Sir Fred whatshisname is laughing at the UK taxpayer in much the same manner as Fitzpatrick. Doesn't make it right of course and I understand your rage completely, but Ireland is not alone in this BS. I would like to see these characters burned at the stake personally.

Fat_Fingers

Almost every week now you read about some other stupidity coming out of AIB. That bank should have been demolished back in 1979 when they jumped in bed with Charles Haughey. Or in 1984 when they had to be bailed out again due to mismanagement and ineptitude.
I tell you any politician willing to shut down that disgrace toilet called AIB have my vote!

Biggins

...but don't worry, they will still get their bonuses.

dan_d

Isn't part of the current tax we pay today to pay back what it took to bail out AIB in the 80's? Possibly PRSI?

How much more of this crap are we going to have to put up with?What will they call the tax to cover the bailout of the banks last year?

Red_Marauder

where's my NAMA.

Beer & Cake for everyone.

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

where's my NAMA.

Beer & Cake for everyone.

You joke about posters legitimate concerns about the fairness in how this crisis is being dealt with, a shining representative of FG you are.

Red_Marauder

Laminations wrote: »

You joke about posters legitimate concerns about the fairness in how this crisis is being dealt with, a shining representative of FG you are.

The OP is suggesting mass defaulting in order to get some petty revenge. I would hope that kind of suggestion wouldn't be seriously entertained by anyone over twelve.

Our Nama is NAMA. The developers don't owe anything less than they did a few months ago. This process is necessary because we need a viable banking sector.

SLUSK

Fine example of crony capitalism in Ireland. The rich gets bailed out while normal people have to pay higher taxes and getting squeezed hard, but it's your own guys fault since you insist on voting for Fianna FAIL.

AlekSmart

There is a fine sense of Pathos about the departure of Halifax from the Irish market as from may accounts it was run in a somewhat professional manner from the Retail Customers POV.

It strikes me that the Irish Government may be plámasing the entirely wrong set of Bankers.

The native Irish one`s do appear to be intrinsically crooked by their very breeding and all we seemj to be doing is encouraging them to further excess..?

blackiebest

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The OP is suggesting mass defaulting in order to get some petty revenge. I would hope that kind of suggestion wouldn't be seriously entertained by anyone over twelve.

Our Nama is NAMA. The developers don't owe anything less than they did a few months ago. This process is necessary because we need a viable banking sector.

No you are very wrong. Maybe we live in a very unjust society and within that unjust society the best thing is for anyone over twelve not to consider revolting against the sh1te we are been asked to swallow.

I am 40, father, husband and former company director now struggling to put insurance on my car. If as somone suggested you are affiliated with FG or any of the parties it makes sense for you to see me as an immature seeking "petty" revenge.

From my seat it is difficult to see any benefit in allowing what is happening to continue. We have been shafted, I seriously have been shafted and while bankrupt developers have bankrupt me, my anger is directed at our banks and the basterds who ran them. When I see people in jail, or at least suffering the hardship my family is facing then I might be more likely to be less "petty".

We are a talented and clever people and if baffles me as to how people, possibly you?, can still "tow a party line" and attempt to try and write off people's anger.

It will be interesting to hear your opinions on Nama in eighteen months time!

SLUSK

If you are to have a capitalist society you have to let incompetent institutions fail. You cannot have a system with private profits and socialized losses.

Erren Music

Just remember 2,000 people are responsible for all the debts going to NAMA.

The Irish Times has established the identities of the top borrowers being moved in the first wave of transfers to the State agency.

They are developers Liam Carroll; Bernard McNamara; Sean Mulryan of Ballymore; financier Derek Quinlan; Paddy McKillen, owner of the Jervis Street Shopping Centre; Treasury Holdings, which is owned by Johnny Ronan and Richard Barrett; Cork developer Michael O’Flynn; Joe O’Reilly, the developer behind the Dundrum Shopping Centre in Dublin; Dublin builder Gerry Gannon, co-owner of the K Club golf resort in Co Kildare; and Galway businessman Gerry Barrett, owner of Ashford Castle in Co Mayo and G Hotel in Galway.

More than €16 billion in loans linked to the top 10 are being moved to Nama out of a total of €80 billion being transferred.

Erren Music

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The OP is suggesting mass defaulting in order to get some petty revenge. I would hope that kind of suggestion wouldn't be seriously entertained by anyone over twelve.

Our Nama is NAMA. The developers don't owe anything less than they did a few months ago. This process is necessary because we need a viable banking sector.

Why was anglo bailed out?

The amount of mass defaulting that us public will be doing will finish the ordinary banks off anyway.

We have gone past the point of no return with biffo and his ship of fools.

Sand

@Red Marauder

This process is necessary because we need a viable banking sector.

We need a viable banking sector, we dont need AIB, BOI or Anglo Irish. AIB, BOI and Anglo Irish propped up in zombie fashion, spending a decades trying to repair their balance sheets whilst taxpayers are raped for cash to pour into that black hole is not a viable banking sector. Anyone looking for credit for any serious venture in the near future will have to look abroad to UK or European banks to supply it.

Postbank have shut up shop. Halifax have closed down. All the other banks are winding down in Ireland. No one has any plans to enter a market where theres a hunger for credit, and no banks providing it. Why?

The reason is pretty clear. Why bother trying to compete in Ireland when the government has decided that AIB, BOI and Anglo Irish can never, ever, ever fail? Waste of time, waste of money, waste of capital. Better to enter a free market where they can entertain the expectation that if they run a good, solid business they will succeed, whereas if others run a bad, lousy business they will fail.

We should have left BoI, AIB and Anglo Irish to burn back in Sept 2008, and only moved to protect small and SME despositors as much as was possible. Instead the government objective has always been to protect the stakeholders and insiders at the expense of the state. Private gain, socialised loss.

Lenihan wasnt kidding when he said he wouldnt allow the banks to fail, at *any* cost. To the taxpayer at least.

Red_Marauder

Sand wrote: »

@Red Marauder
We need a viable banking sector, we dont need AIB, BOI or Anglo Irish. AIB, BOI and Anglo Irish propped up in zombie fashion, spending a decades trying to repair their balance sheets whilst taxpayers are raped for cash to pour into that black hole is not a viable banking sector. Anyone looking for credit for any serious venture in the near future will have to look abroad to UK or European banks to supply it.

I think you have a complete pie in the sky understanding of what bank failure means.
If an Irish banks failed, they would be effectively bought by a foreign institution and then Ireland would be left dependent on external credit. What you are grumbling about in the above post is exactly what would happen if the banks failed.

We should have left BoI, AIB and Anglo Irish to burn back in Sept 2008, and only moved to protect small and SME despositors as much as was possible.

Up to September 2008, there was already a guarantee in place for depositers up to 100k.

Do you have any idea how much money is on deposit in the Irish banks at less than 100k?
And why, if I were a depositor with 600k and 6 in my family, would I not make cash donations to 5 other accounts?
Do you understand the practical implications of removing large depositors from an economy altogether?
Do you have any basic grasp of how much this would all cost the economy on balance sheet - as opposed to the bank guarantee which so far has only cost us ink and paper.

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The OP is suggesting mass defaulting in order to get some petty revenge.

Really? Well what i see is unfairness. I think people are asking why there are double standards. Billy Citizen doesn't WANT to default nor would they be ALLOWED default without paying the price of losing their home and assets. Meanwhile we have super rich developers and financiers who are handled with kid gloves. Those 10 mentioned above have failed to pay their loans back, they are defaulting. They should all be in council houses living on soup and bread. Instead they are given NAMA to work through their loans. This is essentially more time for them to wait around in the hope they can sell their developments for a higher price. Its double standards. And of course we need a viable banking system, no one is arguing that we dont.

Laminations

I'd disagree with Sand about BOI and AIB but anglo should never have been guaranteed and should have been allowed fail, i.e. Default on the bond holders involved there. The bank never lent to regular people and it was well known it was a developers bank. Bond holders knew the risks when they lent money on to that piece of filth institution so they should lose out and have to chase the outstanding developer loans to recoup their money.

Fat_Fingers

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Do you have any basic grasp of how much this would all cost the economy on balance sheet - as opposed to the bank guarantee which so far has only cost us ink and paper.

Your understanding that bank guarantee has only cost us ink and paper is wrong. The government’s guarantee of all bank deposits and debts covers about €400bn in liabilities
Once state entered that dance with banks it can not guarantee bank deposits and at same time allow banks to collapse. THAT guarantee of “ink and paper” has cost taxpayer so far €10 billion in recapitalisation of Irish banks. This is real money, not “ink and paper” .And we will see probably another €10 billion pumped into Anglo, AIB and BoI. So please don’t say it cost us nothing.

deise blue

Let's not forget that both Bank of Ireland and AIB both paid the 3.5% increase due under the National Wage Agreement towards 2016 and in direct opposition to the Government's stated wishes AIB appointed an insider as CEO , arrogance or what ?
I do think that Companies if profitable should adhere to the terms of the National Wage Agreements but the Banks !

Idbatterim

I just read in the independent that AIB plan on making 1000 - 2000 redundant, hopefully most through early retirement, but likely compulsory redundancies, say on average the cost to AIB for an average employee is 40,000 per annum, they are saving €40,000,000 per year per 1,000 sacked! €40,000,000! Yet we are about to throw another €3500000000 into the AIB black hole possibly up to another €600000000 into Anglo! Do you know how many times 40 million goes into 3.5 billion? 87.5!

whynotwhycanti

I think SLUSK summarised it so well, private profits and socialized losses. I have a real problem with this too big too fail thesis. It was firstly started by lobbyists in Wall St, by Wall St, for Wall St and has been used here to scare us into thinking we couldn’t possibly let these institutions fail. We have all seen now in the US how they have blocked congress to establish where the bail out money went and are back to paying out huge bonuses. Some of the bailed out banks have in fairness paid back the bail out money but wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the bail out. Well its back to business as usual over there.

‘ If a corporation screws up to the point where it needs government largesse to survive, the government should let it go belly up, and the hell with its CEO and its chief financial officer. The trouble with the current too big to fail thesis is that it thwarts the clean up and natural corrective process of a bear market. Nothing gets sanitized, and the inefficient corporations get a new lease on life. The natural "cleansing" processes of a bear market are held in check. If a bank heads for bankruptcy because of the stupidity of its CEO and its board, should that bank be thrown a life-saver? If a bank is too big too fail then it is too big too exist’ (Taken from a economist newsletter I read, Richard Russell)

These banks made ridiculous decisions and took outrageous risks. There are too many banks and too many bankers, with the financial system having too much power. The last ten years or saw a huge increase of people entering the finance industry. We need more teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, scientists etc. These are the people that can bring investment to a country not some crooked banking system based on pure unadulterated greed and the situation we are in now is testament to that.

Red_Marauder

Laminations wrote: »

Meanwhile we have super rich developers and financiers who are handled with kid gloves. [...] They should all be in council houses living on soup and bread. Instead they are given NAMA to work through their loans.

NAMA is there to clear up the banks' balance sheets. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the developers who they owe their money to. Whether they owe it to NAMA or to AIB, they may still be opening the very same solicitors' letters regardless. Please explain how exactly you think NAMA is better for developers.

Furthermore, unlike mortgage holders in arrears, developers are not being treated with kid gloves. There is no moratorium on legal action against developers and business men and they are currently being pursued through the courts as it (and as it continues to) get to that stage. It is the mortgage owners in arrears that are being treated with compassion - rather daftly imo.

Fat_Fingers wrote:

Your understanding that bank guarantee has only cost us ink and paper is wrong. The government’s guarantee of all bank deposits and debts covers about €400bn in liabilities

Look, I'm talking about what the actual financial penalty has been, and it has been the cost of ink and paper. Not one red cent of that 400bn has been paid, nor will it be. It is a theoretical figure not something that is on balance sheet. It might as well be monopoly money because the state doesn't have 400bn to pay out.

It's all part of the the smoke and mirrors magic show that the international finance kids get a thrill from.

THAT guarantee of “ink and paper” has cost taxpayer so far €10 billion in recapitalisation of Irish banks. This is real money, not “ink and paper” .

Recapitalisation is not an exclusive product of the guarantee, you could have had recapitalisation without the guarantee. And furthermore it's being funded by the NPRF, not through taxation; you are wrong twice over.

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

NAMA is there to clear up the banks' balance sheets. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the developers who they owe their money to. Whether they owe it to NAMA or to AIB, they may still be opening the very same solicitors' letters regardless. Please explain how exactly you think NAMA is better for developers.

Furthermore, unlike mortgage holders in arrears, developers are not being treated with kid gloves. There is no moratorium on legal action against developers and business men and they are currently being pursued through the courts as it (and as it continues to) get to that stage. It is the mortgage owners in arrears that are being treated with compassion - rather daftly imo.

Ok so no moratorium, ay?
There is evidence that developers haven't been paying back even the interest on their loans for over a year. The article refers to Anglo, a government owned bank.

The public has been assured by Government that the recently nationalised bank would chase its creditors down on their borrowings.

Sounds like the type of sh!te they are now spouting about NAMA


And quite frankly we are being taking for saps by the chief bankers, the makers of this mess.

This refers to David Drumm

He earned €12.15m during the period, making him Ireland's best-paid banker until the taxpayer had to step in and save the institution from ruin.

The legal action comes months after Mr Drumm filed documents with the US authorities to declare a 4,800sq ft house in Cape Cod in the US as his main home.

According to Massachusetts state law, such a declaration technically protects the homeowner from creditors' efforts to recover debts in the event of a forced sale.

Fat_Fingers

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Recapitalisation is not an exclusive product of the guarantee, you could have had recapitalisation without the guarantee. And furthermore it's being funded by the NPRF, not through taxation; you are wrong twice over.

Hold it there for sec. Recapitalisation using money from National Pensions Reserve Fund is still taxpayers money. That money didnt come out of nowhere.

Sand

@Red Marauder

I think you have a complete pie in the sky understanding of what bank failure means.
If an Irish banks failed, they would be effectively bought by a foreign institution and then Ireland would be left dependent on external credit.

Two points:

1 - So what? Banks arent football teams. Carlow is probably dependant on external credit. Likewise, we are a *tiny* open economy in a large economic and currency union with free capital flow. The only credit to flow in Ireland over the next few years will be coming from British and European banks, plus some of the smaller Irish crediti institutions like the Credit Union. Get used to it.
2 - I hate to break it to you but we *are* dependant on external credit...you remember Brian Lenihan screaming about trying to impress the market with our seriousness? He wasnt talking about the cattle fair down in Carrick.

What you are grumbling about in the above post is exactly what would happen if the banks failed.

So effectively, NAMA has failed in that we are still dependant on external credit. Great.

Up to September 2008, there was already a guarantee in place for depositers up to 100k.

So, wholly satisfactory. No need to suddenly guarantee all their debt as well, on top of the deposits.

And why, if I were a depositor with 600k and 6 in my family, would I not make cash donations to 5 other accounts?
Do you understand the practical implications of removing large depositors from an economy altogether?
Do you have any basic grasp of how much this would all cost the economy on balance sheet - as opposed to the bank guarantee which so far has only cost us ink and paper.

Look, heres a dose of reality.

The government cant cover 100K deposits on a systematic basis. It cant cover 100K, and it cant cover some theoretically infinite deposit either. It cant do it. I might as well guarantee the deposits...Actually, why not, if you and me chip in, maybe we can guarantee the deposits. We'll announce it to the markets. We've got as much chance as the Irish state if those guarantees ever get called in.

Theres this crazy dementia that somehow Mama State can pick everyone up, give them a hug and kiss to mend that scraped knee and send us on our way with no repercussions.

The banks *are* going to fail because we have nearly 500K unemployed, many who have taken mortgages out at the height of the boom and now have no jobs, no income and no hope of employment in the near future.

When those mortgages begin to default (and they will), then the banks will be wiped out all over again.

I am sorry, but theres no quick and easy fix. The banks are too big to save. We need to look to our own and get out from under them when they collapse.


And ink and paper? Are you kidding?

The Sept 2008 guarantee was a disastrous decision by an incompetent and green Finance minister panicked into it by similar doom mongering. At a time when the Irish state was already in trouble, the banking chiefs threw it an anchor. Every stupid, foolish, short sighted policy that Lenihan has pursued since has been dictated to him on the basis of that incredibly foolish Sept Guarantee. Ink and paper? Yeah, right....11 billion so far, plus the new Anglo Irish losses, plus the future AIB and BOI losses on their mortgage books, plus the 20-30 billion losses on NAMA, plus the cost of a sovereign default/German bailout when our promises outstrip the states abilities to meet them.

Ink and paper.

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the developers who they owe their money to. Whether they owe it to NAMA or to AIB, they may still be opening the very same solicitors' letters regardless. Please explain how exactly you think NAMA is better for developers.

They have a debt holiday as the banks dont *want* to call in the debt and face reality. They want to shove it over to NAMA and pretend its still possible to recover the loan from property developers in an enviroment where courts are seeing immense (70-95% losses) on property valuations. Yeah, they owe the money, but they cant pay. So when you get over the "Well, lets sell them and their children into slavery" hysteria, youre still left with an immense loss. Call me selfish, but that's the banks loss and they should take it.

It is the mortgage owners in arrears that are being treated with compassion - rather daftly imo.

I am unsurprised by your support of NAMA and bemusement with compassion for ordinary people tbh.

Disapointed, sure. But not surprised.

It might as well be monopoly money because the state doesn't have 400bn to pay out.

Whew, what a relief. I thought we were in trouble there for a second.

Recapitalisation is not an exclusive product of the guarantee, you could have had recapitalisation without the guarantee. And furthermore it's being funded by the NPRF, not through taxation; you are wrong twice over.

Yes, the NPRF is magic money. Its not like that real money stuff.

Are you serious? Honestly?

Tommy Bateman...watch and learn. The above is how its done properly when its not as blatant that youre trying so hard.

Truthrevolution

You know i dont think much of Enda Kenny but i think he is right in what he said today.There will be a revolution, we cannot let these criminal elite get away with it anymore.

Heres an interesting article i was reading the other day, former AIB chairman Dermot Gleeson paid 900k in shares just weeks before the financial crisis.He then stepped down from his post.Looks like this snake oil scumbag might have had previous knowledge of what was to come, i think i know how......

http://www.independant.ie/national-news/gleeson-paid-8364900k-for-shares-weeks-before-crisis-2062800.html

Erren Music

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Heres an interesting article i was reading the other day, former AIB chairman Dermot Gleeson paid 900k in shares just weeks before the financial crisis.

I remember this pompus fool telling journalists AIB did not need any government money in 07 or 08, they were completely solvent.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

NAMA is there to clear up the banks' balance sheets. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the developers who they owe their money to. Whether they owe it to NAMA or to AIB, they may still be opening the very same solicitors' letters regardless. Please explain how exactly you think NAMA is better for developers.

All the assets of these guys should be seized. A number of prominent developers have changed their residency to other countries, and they have moved assets to their wive's and families.

If you move to UK and become bankrupt or insolvent you only have to wait 2 years, as opposed to 12 here. Also our government cannot take assets that have been transfered to family, no matter how much they owe.

If I was bankrupt, but still wealthy and driving my (wife's) Range Rover, and living in my 4,000 sq ft (wife's) house, and using cash from my (childrens) bank account. I would be making sure I had a bodyguard, because something has to happen.

Imagine if you were owed 100 grand by that guy. Or 1.6 billion.

Sand wrote: »

@Red Marauder

Look, heres a dose of reality.

The banks *are* going to fail because we have nearly 500K unemployed, many who have taken mortgages out at the height of the boom and now have no jobs, no income and no hope of employment in the near future.

When those mortgages begin to default (and they will), then the banks will be wiped out all over again.

I am sorry, but theres no quick and easy fix. The banks are too big to save. We need to look to our own and get out from under them when they collapse.

And ink and paper? Are you kidding?

The Sept 2008 guarantee was a disastrous decision by an incompetent and green Finance minister panicked into it by similar doom mongering. At a time when the Irish state was already in trouble, the banking chiefs threw it an anchor. Every stupid, foolish, short sighted policy that Lenihan has pursued since has been dictated to him on the basis of that incredibly foolish Sept Guarantee. Ink and paper? Yeah, right....11 billion so far, plus the new Anglo Irish losses, plus the future AIB and BOI losses on their mortgage books, plus the 20-30 billion losses on NAMA, plus the cost of a sovereign default/German bailout when our promises outstrip the states abilities to meet them.

I agree with you on this.

The banks will fail, the idiot Lenihan will have to merge BOI and AIB, thousands more out of work, mortgage defaults, credit card default, loan defaults, foreign companies will Fcuk off quicker than you will believe.

And the idiots are still borrowing 20 billion a year, 20% of our GDP will be used to service our loans in 2 years.

This is insane.

We are finished.

BluntGuy

Red_Marauder wrote: »

NAMA is there to clear up the banks' balance sheets. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the developers who they owe their money to. Whether they owe it to NAMA or to AIB, they may still be opening the very same solicitors' letters regardless. Please explain how exactly you think NAMA is better for developers.

They won't be though.

If this was the case, there would be no need for NAMA.

End of story.

The only way the government's proposed NAMA can work is if there is no "need" for it in the first place, therefore it cannot work.

I don't know why Lenihan thinks NAMA has magical abilities over every single other bank in the world, that can somehow allow it to recover substantial money from depreciated "assets". But this is the crap we're apparently meant to believe.

zootroid

BluntGuy wrote: »

They won't be though.

If this was the case, there would be no need for NAMA.

End of story.

The only way the government's proposed NAMA can work is if there is no "need" for it in the first place, therefore it cannot work.

I don't know why Lenihan thinks NAMA has magical abilities over every single other bank in the world, that can somehow allow it to recover substantial money from depreciated "assets". But this is the crap we're apparently meant to believe.

This is exactly what I don't understand about the government. When the idea was first mooted, they claimed it would even generate a return to the taxpayer. Absolute horsesh!t. Developers borrowed huge sums of money for land that is now worth nothing, and now they can't repay. So how the government expects to recoup any money is beyond me.

The only thing is that by getting rid of these dodgy loans, the banks will not have lost as much money on these loans, so their balance sheets will be a little better, and so might be in a better position to lend more money to the economy (although I won't be holding my breath).

BluntGuy

zootroid wrote: »

The only thing is that by getting rid of these dodgy loans, the banks will not have lost as much money on these loans, so their balance sheets will be a little better, and so might be in a better position to lend more money to the economy (although I won't be holding my breath).

The banks won't be lending any money. Banks in European countries that are far better off than us are reducing their lending substantially, why would our banks be any different?

The IMF themselves stated that the plan was unlikely to increase lending to small businesses. But of course they agree with the plan because we all know where their priorities lie. :rolleyes:

So Brian Lenihan either messed up, or lied... as usual.

It is nothing more than a bank and developer bailout because the sole benefit of it (to us, as citizens) has proven to be nothing more than a fallacy.

Liam Byrne

BluntGuy wrote: »

So Brian Lenihan either messed up, or lied... as usual.

Well his statement last year about dividends was (a) at best, too optimistic, (b) middle-ground a sin of omission or (c) a downright lie.

Because if he - as he said this week - "knew there might be an issue" with the EU, he definitely didn't mention that until after he'd committed us to it.

BluntGuy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well his statement last year about dividends was (a) at best, too optimistic, (b) middle-ground a sin of omission or (c) a downright lie.

Well he is Minister for Finance and should know what he is doing.

If he is lieing that is a disgrace.

If he made a mistake as huge as this then that is also a disgrace. Especially after denouncing all of the alternative plans.

AlekSmart

Well he is Minister for Finance and should know what he is doing.

Funnily enough BluntGuy,at the Matt Cooper post budget programme broadcast live from the O Callaghan Alexander Hotel our old pal Mary Coughlan roundly berated the Panel,including Sen Shane Ross,Fintain O Toole and others about them "Thinking they knew more than the Minister for Finance and all of his experts".

God...but that lady has BALLS !!!

BluntGuy

AlekSmart wrote: »

Funnily enough BluntGuy,at the Matt Cooper post budget programme broadcast live from the O Callaghan Alexander Hotel our old pal Mary Coughlan roundly berated the Panel,including Sen Shane Ross,Fintain O Toole and others about them "Thinking they knew more than the Minister for Finance and all of his experts".

God...but that lady has BALLS !!!

She is quite the woman!

I presume these are the same "experts" who ploughed our economic ship straight into the icebergs of recession.

Erren Music

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well he is Minister for Finance and should know what he is doing.

If he is lieing that is a disgrace.

If he made a mistake as huge as this then that is also a disgrace. Especially after denouncing all of the alternative plans.

They haven't a clue.

How many of them have been caught lying.

This mistake will continue like all their other mistakes until we are bankrupt.