Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee?

realitykeeper

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

Arthur Beesley

realitykeeper wrote: »

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

Maybe the public sector should also?

Chips Lovell

They'd need a fair sized tent at the Galway Races to raise €450 billion

realitykeeper wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

It has everything to do with the Irish taxpayer. Like it or not, we elected them.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

Let us keep with the reality that the Irish people elected the Fianna Fail government.

Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 450 bn is silly mindless ignorance of the real cost of the guarantee.

Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 65 bn is the gross cost of the bailout to the Irish taxpayer and that the net long-term cost will be much less.

Let us also keep with the reality that the public finance problems, while triggered by the market's dislike of the bank bailout, where mainly caused by other actions of the Fianna Fail government, such as exempting low-paid workers from tax, increasing social welfare rates and creating a disconnect between work and welfare.

Then we can have a debate.

comongethappy

You make some wacky threads Reality!

The deposit guarantee scheme didn't cost the taxpayer anything.

The cost of insuring the potential liability was paid for by the participating institutions & administered by the Central bank

http://www.centralbank.ie/paycurr/paysys/dgs/pages/about.aspx

No Pants

Absolutely. We should stick FF with the bill, they claim bankruptcy, rename themselves as New Fianna Fail and continue on as before. Or maybe make Willie O'Dea pay it with the proceeds raised from an auction of his moustache. Then we'll all be debt free.

Jim2007

realitykeeper wrote: »

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

There must have been an incredible amount of voter impersonation going on at elections in those days then, although I can't remember hearing much about it on the TV......

stevedublin

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

It has everything to do with the Irish taxpayer. Like it or not, we elected them.

I didn't

Godge

stevedublin wrote: »

I didn't

Everyone elected the government, that is what representative democracy is about.

Where those of us who saw through FF failed, was in not persuading enough others of the stupidity of FF's actions.

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

Let us keep with the reality that the Irish people elected the Fianna Fail government.

Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 450 bn is silly mindless ignorance of the real cost of the guarantee.

Let us also keep with the reality that the figure of 65 bn is the gross cost of the bailout to the Irish taxpayer and that the net long-term cost will be much less.

Let us also keep with the reality that the public finance problems, while triggered by the market's dislike of the bank bailout, where mainly caused by other actions of the Fianna Fail government, such as exempting low-paid workers from tax, increasing social welfare rates and creating a disconnect between work and welfare.

Then we can have a debate.

So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it.

Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact.

Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.

barneystinson

stevedublin wrote: »

I didn't

You remind me of the guy at the end of this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOCUFFn4Ug

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it. .

General elections are not referenda. It really is quite that simple.

Election manifestos are not binding on elected governments, every intelligent voter knows that because they are subject to circumstance, whether that be coalition with another party or subsequent events or financial constraints.

In electing a government, we should therefore elect those who we believe will best manage the country and best implement the policies we favour.

It is a ridiculous argument to suggest that because the bank guarantee was not part of their manifesto, they are somehow liable for it.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact. .

The 450 billion cost assumes that the assets of the banks were worth nothing. While they were worth less than the banks thought they were worth, they were not worth nothing.

That means 450 billion is a silly irrelevant number just used for sensationalism.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.

If we had been running a significant budget surplus at the time of the bank guarantee (which the economic cycle would suggest we should have been) the markets would not have been spooked as much by the guarantee. If the banks had been more stable and the boom sustainable the guarantee would have caused the markets to yawn, no more.

The real problems were underneath the guarantee, the unsustainable public finances and the credit and property booms that were out of control. This requires a deeper analysis than superficial rants.

P.S. I have absolutely no time for FF

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

General elections are not referenda. It really is quite that simple.

Election manifestos are not binding on elected governments, every intelligent voter knows that because they are subject to circumstance, whether that be coalition with another party or subsequent events or financial constraints.

In electing a government, we should therefore elect those who we believe will best manage the country and best implement the policies we favour.

It is a ridiculous argument to suggest that because the bank guarantee was not part of their manifesto, they are somehow liable for.

Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.

Godge wrote: »

The 450 billion cost assumes that the assets of the banks were worth nothing. While they were worth less than the banks thought they were worth, they were not worth nothing.

That means 450 billion is a silly irrelevant number just used for sensationalism.

Most of this is true but irrelevant. Sensational or not, 450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee. Covering the cost of the guarantee does not mean they have to pay the full 450 billion - I already said that in the opening thread.

Godge wrote: »

If we had been running a significant budget surplus at the time of the bank guarantee (which the economic cycle would suggest we should have been) the markets would not have been spooked as much by the guarantee. If the banks had been more stable and the boom sustainable the guarantee would have caused the markets to yawn, no more.

The real problems were underneath the guarantee, the unsustainable public finances and the credit and property booms that were out of control. This requires a deeper analysis than superficial rants.

P.S. I have absolutely no time for FF

All true but again irrelevant. FF were mandated to manage the economy and they were not mandated to mismanage it. Problems should have been foreseen and evaded by buying insurance against them. Giving free insurance to the banks after the event was not mandated by the electorate. FF did that on their own.

golfwallah

realitykeeper wrote: »

So you want to keep it real and talk about facts. Great. Here are the real facts:

Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto. Therefore they did not have the mandate to do that. FF had a mandate to manage the economy, they did not have a mandate to mismanage it.

Real fact 2: The Irish banks were guaranteed for 450 billion. I agree that was silly but it is also a fact.

Real fact 3: While it is true that FF were also responsible for other public finance problems that has nothing to do with this topic, this is about the bank guarantee.

The government derives its power from the constitution (as accepted and amended by the Irish Electorate over the years) - not from election manifestos, which vary from election to election.

Section 28.2

The executive power of the State shall, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Government.

Everyone knows that manifestos are not legally binding - although there can be election penalties for failing to keep promises or for screwing up, even if every other government in the world is also screwing up. FF are paying that price today and it looks very likely they will continue to pay for a long time to come.

However about your view of the "facts" - there are no legal grounds for the kind of action you are proposing. You may as well try to sue the electorate for electing the last government!

comongethappy

realitykeeper wrote: »

Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.

Is this relating to the 'mandatory annual general election' thing you were going on about before?

450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee.

No..... no its not.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country. If a dodgy tradesman ruins your house he is responsible. It is no different with political parties.

This beats the freeman of the land nonsense hands down. There are no tenders or contracts in elections - that is silly.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Most of this is true but irrelevant. Sensational or not, 450 Billion is the cost of the guarantee. Covering the cost of the guarantee does not mean they have to pay the full 450 billion - I already said that in the opening thread.

450 is the value of the guarantee, it is not the cost of the guarantee. A huge difference.

realitykeeper wrote: »

All true but again irrelevant. FF were mandated to manage the economy and they were not mandated to mismanage it. Problems should have been foreseen and evaded by buying insurance against them. Giving free insurance to the banks after the event was not mandated by the electorate. FF did that on their own.

And the way FF should be paid back is in the ballot box. There is no other way than that. Suggesting otherwise is unrealistic.

antoobrien

realitykeeper wrote: »

Political parties are private companies

Really, do they pay their members (whom I presume are shareholders) dividends?

Sierra Oscar

realitykeeper wrote: »

Political parties are private companies which tender for a contract to run the country.

No, political parties are political parties. Simple as really. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that and except people to take your analysis seriously.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Real fact 1: Guaranteeing all the Irish banks was never part of the FF election manifesto.

Do do you believe we should have General Election, with a month long campaign, every time an urgent governmental decision needs to be made that was not foreseen in a program for government?

You would probably need a General Election after every cabinet meeting. Unfortunately it is not easy to govern a country that way.

quadrifoglio verde

realitykeeper wrote: »

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

You need to do more reading, sinn fein backed the guarantee, labour didn't.
Thats without getting into what you're suggesting by the way, which is about as ludicrous as joe higgins calling for a pay rise for richie boucher :pac:

realitykeeper

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

No, political parties are political parties. Simple as really. You can't just make a sweeping statement like that and except people to take your analysis seriously.

My view of political parties is not tainted by the rules, privileges, pomp and ceremony the politicians invent to make the gullible see them as something other than what they are. They are business people who run a cartel and share the spoils irrespective of who wins the contract.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Do do you believe we should have General Election, with a month long campaign, every time an urgent governmental decision needs to be made that was not foreseen in a program for government?

You would probably need a General Election after every cabinet meeting. Unfortunately it is not easy to govern a country that way.

I assume the urgent government decision you are referring to is the bailout. The problems which gave rise to the crisis were ten years in the making and yet they were not foreseen or safeguarded against by those who paid themselves so handsomely. That is why they are responsible.

If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money

realitykeeper

antoobrien wrote: »

Really, do they pay their members (whom I presume are shareholders) dividends?

How should I know, go ask them.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

My view of political parties is not tainted by the rules, privileges, pomp and ceremony the politicians invent to make the gullible see them as something other than what they are. They are business people who run a cartel and share the spoils irrespective of who wins the contract.



I assume the urgent government decision you are referring to is the bailout. The problems which gave rise to the crisis were ten years in the making and yet they were not foreseen or safeguarded against by those who paid themselves so handsomely. That is why they are responsible.

If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money

What money? Do you actually pay any tax in Ireland?

You're definitely in the running for most ironic username here, based on this thread.

The constitutional basis for the executive power of the elected Government has been clarified for you already above, your "view" of political parties doesn't come into it. That is reality. You can keep yours.

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

There are no tenders or contracts in elections

Yet that is precisely what elections are. The ballot paper is the contract and as a voter you are on the board of Ireland Inc. I wish Ryanair would tender for the contract, they would get my vote.

Godge wrote: »

450 is the value of the guarantee, it is not the cost of the guarantee. A huge difference.

We`ve been through this already. Yes I know it won`t actually cost 450 billion unless every bank fails completely and that is not going to happen. Happy now?

Godge wrote: »

And the way FF should be paid back is in the ballot box. There is no other way than that. Suggesting otherwise is unrealistic.

I disagree. I will however concede that most people will agree with you as long as the finances of Ireland and the world remain relatively stable. That will not be for very long.

realitykeeper

barneystinson wrote: »

The constitutional basis for the executive power of the elected Government has been clarified for you already above.

The judiciary adjudicate based on the constitution and their decision would probably support the government decision to bail out the banks. Had the government opted to let the banks fail, the judiciary would probably have stood by that decision also. In other words, it was too big a matter for the judiciary to actually make a decision on it with any confidence. However, history has shown that the judiciary of a given era will invariably be of its time. Should the times change, so will the judicial interpretation of the constitution with regard to the bailout. In any event, given the scale of the debt crisis in this country, it is unlikely there is a judge or a politician in the country who was completely unaffected by it.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

The judiciary adjudicate based on the constitution and their decision would probably support the government decision to bail out the banks. Had the government opted to let the banks fail, the judiciary would probably have stood by that decision also. In other words, it was too big a matter for the judiciary to actually make a decision on it with any confidence. However, history has shown that the judiciary of a given era will invariably be of its time. Should the times change, so will the judicial interpretation of the constitution with regard to the bailout. In any event, given the scale of the debt crisis in this country, it is unlikely there is a judge or a politician in the country who was completely unaffected by it.

Why are you bringing the judiciary into it?

Also, you've chosen to ignore the first part of my previous post...

realitykeeper

barneystinson wrote: »

Why are you bringing the judiciary into it?

Also, you've chosen to ignore the first part of my previous post...

You referred to the constitution and the point I was making was that the constitution can be interpreted any which way. For example, I would be of the view that guaranteeing the banks is not constitutional because that would not be treating all the children of the state equally. Another person may think it does treat them equally and since the judiciary adjudicate on such matters, I brought the judiciary into it.

The points you were getting at in the first part of your previous post were unclear.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

The points you were getting at in the first part of your previous post were unclear.

You said:
If the rest of the electorate are happy to let the government bail out the banks that is fine - they won`t be doing it with my money.

And I asked you, what money? Do you actually pay any tax in Ireland?

(And for clarity, I'm talking about you personally with your own money that you've earned, not money handed to you by your parents or the state.)

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

You're definitely in the running for most ironic username here, based on this thread.

.

Most true statement in the thread.

realitykeeper

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Maybe the public sector should also?

The public sector did not guarantee the banks so they should not be liable to cover the 450 billion. That said, almost all state spending and borrowing goes to prop up the public sector so I would have no issue with a moratorium on public sector pay and spending, pending the full and final repayment of the national debt along with any interest due.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

The public sector did not guarantee the banks so they should not be liable to cover the 450 billion. That said, almost all state spending and borrowing goes to prop up the public sector so I would have no issue with a moratorium on public sector pay and spending, pending the full and final repayment of the national debt along with any interest due.

What does a moratorium on PS pay and spending mean, in the reality which you keep?

antoobrien

realitykeeper wrote: »

The public sector did not guarantee the banks

Was it not publicly elected officials and their appointees that put it together and ran said guarantee?

realitykeeper

antoobrien wrote: »

Was it not publicly elected officials and their appointees that put it together and ran said guarantee?

I assume you are referring to the politicians when you refer to the public sector employees. Political parties compete on the open market for the contract to run the country. Therefore political parties are private companies. Independent politicians are in the same line of business albeit on a smaller scale like any other sole trader. Therefore it is those companies that were involved in giving and implementing the bank guarantee which are liable.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

I do agree that public sector employees are personally culpable and therefore personally liable. I do not agree that the private sector employees should be taxed to pay for the mistakes of public sector employees. Let the PS employees pay for their own mistakes.

You do realise that publicly elected officials, and public sector employees aren't analogous?!

You scare me, genuinely.

realitykeeper

barneystinson wrote: »

You do realise that publicly elected officials, and public sector employees aren't analogous?!

You scare me, genuinely.

I edited the quote you refer to so it no longer applies but you are right there is a difference between an employee of the public sector and a publicly elected official. Namely, the elected are those companies (and sole traders) which win the business contract to run the country when it is put out to tender every five years.

That is why FF, FG and Labour are liable to cover the potential 450 billion cost of bailing out the banks. It was their decision and theirs alone. They were charged with the task of managing the country and instead they mismanaged it.

FG and Labour specifically lobbied for the contract based on the promise that they would not bail out the bondholders. In breaking that promise those companies unilaterally assumed liability for the cost on their own balance sheet. The Ireland Inc is not liable, FF, FG and Labour are.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

I edited the quote you refer to so it no longer applies but you are right there is a difference between an employee of the public sector and a publicly elected official. Namely, the elected are those companies (and sole traders) which win the business contract to run the country when it is put out to tender every five years.

That is why FF, FG and Labour are liable to cover the potential 450 billion cost of bailing out the banks. It was their decision and theirs alone. They were charged with the task of managing the country and instead they mismanaged it.

FG and Labour specifically lobbied for the contract based on the promise that they would not bail out the bondholders. In breaking that promise those companies unilaterally assumed liability for the cost on their own balance sheet. The Ireland Inc is not liable, FF, FG and Labour are.

Again scary, and more nonsensical than freeman tripe - political parties are not companies, nothing is put out to tender, there is no contract, and politicians aren't sole traders. If you actually believe that is reality you should get help, this kind of delusion is indicative of the kind of person who one day will walk into a building somewhere armed to the teeth, or with a bomb-belt... to "show everyone"...

realitykeeper

barneystinson wrote: »

Again scary, and more nonsensical than freeman tripe - political parties are not companies, nothing is put out to tender, there is no contract, and politicians aren't sole traders. If you actually believe that is reality you should get help, this kind of delusion is indicative of the kind of person who one day will walk into a building somewhere armed to the teeth, or with a bomb-belt... to "show everyone"...

Lets not be rude or allow this to become personal. You keep saying that political parties are not companies and nothing is put out to tender when it is patently obvious that they are and it is.

Who can deny that a general election is essentially the same as any other large tendering process. Companies compete by lobbying and in some cases bribing the issuer of the contract just like political parties lobbying and making all kinds of promises to the ordinary voter in a general election.

A large company will hold a board meeting and decide which of the competing bids they want to accept. The members of the board vote. Similarly, ordinary voters will decide who to vote for in a general election. The only difference is that in other industries, cartels are the exception whereas in the political industry cartels are the norm.

marienbad

realitykeeper wrote: »

Lets not be rude or allow this to become personal. You keep saying that political parties are not companies and nothing is put out to tender when it is patently obvious that they are and it is.

Who can deny that a general election is essentially the same as any other large tendering process. Companies compete by lobbying and in some cases bribing the issuer of the contract just like political parties lobbying and making all kinds of promises to the ordinary voter in a general election.

A large company will hold a board meeting and decide which of the competing bids they want to accept. The members of the board vote. Similarly, ordinary voters will decide who to vote for in a general election. The only difference is that in other industries, cartels are the exception whereas in the political industry cartels are the norm.

Well if political parties are companies why don't you take them to court instead of venting on boards ?

Is this the most stupid thread ever ? no wonder this country is fcuked up.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

Lets not be rude or allow this to become personal. You keep saying that political parties are not companies and nothing is put out to tender when it is patently obvious that they are and it is.

Who can deny that a general election is essentially the same as any other large tendering process. Companies compete by lobbying and in some cases bribing the issuer of the contract just like political parties lobbying and making all kinds of promises to the ordinary voter in a general election.

A large company will hold a board meeting and decide which of the competing bids they want to accept. The members of the board vote. Similarly, ordinary voters will decide who to vote for in a general election. The only difference is that in other industries, cartels are the exception whereas in the political industry cartels are the norm.

The only thing that's patently obvious is that you're deluded. You may have noticed a trend of you getting no support for your contentions... there's a reason for that.

Things being "essentially the same" does not make them the same. Otherwise I could say "politics IS a reality tv show" by using the same logic as you use to determine that political parties are companies...

Anyway, how do you decide that they're companies? Why not partnerships consisting of multiple members?

I seriously hope you are a secondary school student.

realitykeeper

barneystinson wrote: »

The only thing that's patently obvious is that you're deluded. You may have noticed a trend of you getting no support for your contentions... there's a reason for that.

Things being "essentially the same" does not make them the same. Otherwise I could say "politics IS a reality tv show" by using the same logic as you use to determine that political parties are companies...

Anyway, how do you decide that they're companies? Why not partnerships consisting of multiple members?

I seriously hope you are a secondary school student.

In George Orwell`s Animal Farm, the horses pulling the horsebox to the slaughterhouse comes to mind. They would not listen, neither would the sheep with their "four legs good ..." chant. But, as you say I am getting no support and you are right, there is a reason for that.

I used the "essentially the same" phrase in order to help bridge the gulf between your extraordinarily trenchant mindset and the reality that political parties are companies.

Your suggestion that they are "partnerships consisting of multiple members" needs to be completed because the members are not defined. The members are companies sharing the contract to run Ireland Inc. Specifically FG and Labour.

As for being a student, I completed my education when I learned to think for myself. An activity I would recommend to you.

realitykeeper

marienbad wrote: »

Well if political parties are companies why don't you take them to court instead of venting on boards ?

Is this the most stupid thread ever ? no wonder this country is fcuked up.

I am not venting, I am challenging a established idea and giving a new perspective. Admittedly, my diction lacks the colour and articulation of yours.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

In George Orwell`s Animal Farm, the horses pulling the horsebox to the slaughterhouse comes to mind. They would not listen, neither would the sheep with their "four legs good ..." chant. But, as you say I am getting no support and you are right, there is a reason for that.

I used the "essentially the same" phrase in order to help bridge the gulf between your extraordinarily trenchant mindset and the reality that political parties are companies.

Your suggestion that they are "partnerships consisting of multiple members" needs to be completed because the members are not defined. The members are companies sharing the contract to run Ireland Inc. Specifically FG and Labour.

As for being a student, I completed my education when I learned to think for myself. An activity I would recommend to you.

That's lovely, and you can waffle on using all the flowery language you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're completely wrong.

Someday you'll hopefully get the help that you need, or grow out of this phase you're going through. All the best, reading back through your posts I can see you're not going to be persuaded of anything by even the most well reasoned of responses on here so I won't waste anymore time or effort.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other. Getting "too personal" is not allowed by our charter.

Berserker

realitykeeper wrote: »

Personally I abhor Sinn Fein but I would sooner vote for them than any of the above.

Why do so many people keep saying things like this? If you abhor someone or something why on gods earth would you want to give them control? If you vote for SF then you are a supporter of SF, you condone their actions in the past and you agree with their "values".

On the original topic. The people voted in FF repeatedly, on the back of promises of cuts and a good time. End of story. People gave them the power to do the damage they did.

antoobrien

realitykeeper wrote: »

I assume you are referring to the politicians when you refer to the public sector employees.

Head of the central bank, financial regulator, dept of finance staff ...........

realitykeeper

antoobrien wrote: »

Head of the central bank, financial regulator, dept of finance staff ...........

I would blame them for everything that led up to the bank bailouts but not the bailouts themselves. Had the entities mentioned done what they were supposed to then the economy would have grown much more slowly but more sustainably through the naughties. The banks and broader economy would then have been able to manage in the 2008 credit crunch. This is why I believe in massive austerity with the public sector taking all the cuts. These cuts should be such that the state not only does not have to borrow but can systematically pay down the principle and interest on the national debt.

However, it was the politicians who bailed out the banks. This is why the politicians and the political parties they represent should be required to cover the 450 billion bank guanantee. There was a better alternative to bailing out the banks, Iceland is the proof.

realitykeeper

Berserker wrote: »

Why do so many people keep saying things like this? If you abhor someone or something why on gods earth would you want to give them control? If you vote for SF then you are a supporter of SF, you condone their actions in the past and you agree with their "values".

On the original topic. The people voted in FF repeatedly, on the back of promises of cuts and a good time. End of story. People gave them the power to do the damage they did.

An economic cycle takes at least 15 years so the electorate cannot be blamed for re-electing FF time and again when it seemed like they were doing a good job. Its a bit like the dodgy builder, the problems may take a few years to surface but when the do - the builder is legally responsible. FF were paid a lot of money to manage the economy. By mismanaging it, they breached their contract so they are responsible for their shoddy workmanship.

marienbad

realitykeeper wrote: »

An economic cycle takes at least 15 years so the electorate cannot be blamed for re-electing FF time and again when it seemed like they were doing a good job. Its a bit like the dodgy builder, the problems may take a few years to surface but when the do - the builder is legally responsible. FF were paid a lot of money to manage the economy. By mismanaging it, they breached their contract so they are responsible for their shoddy workmanship.

And like the dodgy builder you can't take them to court or there is no point as they have no assets ,you can't get them to redo the work because now you know they are dodgy builders .

So what to do eh ? Repair the house properly and move on.

If what you say were true OP - who in their right mind would put themselves forward for election if they could be on the hook for state liabilities?

realitykeeper

Deleted User wrote: »

If what you say were true OP - who in their right mind would put themselves forward for election if they could be on the hook for state liabilities?

Honest people. Anyone with integrity.

realitykeeper

marienbad wrote: »

And like the dodgy builder you can't take them to court or there is no point as they have no assets ,you can't get them to redo the work because now you know they are dodgy builders .

So what to do eh ? Repair the house properly and move on.

Anyone who comes looking for repayment of the money that was used to bail out the banks should be told to go talk to Michael Martin of Fianna Fail.

feargale

realitykeeper wrote: »

Should Fianna Fail cover the 450 billion bank guarantee? Giving this guarantee was not part of their mandate and was therefore not within their remit. They would probably not be liable to pay the full 450 billion unless all the banks fail completely. As it is they would only be liable to pay about 65 billion. Of course they would have to default but it is their liability not that of the tax payer.

I would suggest, Fianna Fail, the former executives of the failed banks and those who are owed the money that was lent to the banks should all get together and sort it out between them. It has nothing to do with the Irish taxpayer.

That said, Fine Gael and Labour are probably also partly exposed to the debt because they broke election promises not to bail out the bond holders.

I'm all for it. When they tell the plain people of Ireland they're doing it It should considerably boost their churchgate collections.