Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 'No the Nama' Street Protest on 12th Sept

Options
  • 17-08-2009 11:20am
    #1
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭


    I've started a new thread for this protest, as I believe it is a very important issue.

    The Facebook Group and members from the Property Pin have attended a planning meeting for the 'No to Nama' street protest. The time and date have been set at 2pm on Saturday 12th September, we're marching from the Garden of Remembrance (top of O'Connell St) to the Dail.

    Dave Brown of www.irishpeopleunion.com is spearheading the protest arrangements, and appeared on Newstalk to publicise the protest. Dave will be conducting a media blitz in the run up to the protest to mobilise as many people as possible to make their voice heard regarding NAMA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Ya7viWyNM
    Tagged:


«13

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    greendom
    Registered Users Posts: 16,382 ✭✭✭✭greendom


    So what's your alternative?

    What are you saying YES to?


  • Options
    #3
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

    We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.


  • Options
    #4
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    leonardjos wrote: »
    As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

    We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.


    To be perfectly honest, the things you are saying yes to are all very worthy but I don't see where the mutual exclusivity is coming from. If the banks are nationalised, the tax payer will still own the bad loans, the banks will still need capital and that will come in the form of Government Bonds (directly or indirectly). In fact, Nama acquiring the loans at a discount (any level of discount) is surely better than the tax payer acquiring the banks and carrying the liability for the original loan amounts.

    We can improve provision for healthcare, education and regulation without stopping NAMA.


  • Options
    #5
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,342 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    leonardjos wrote: »
    As has been covered on the Facebook Group, and Property Pin there are many equitable and viable alternatives.

    We are saying Yes to exploring all the alternatives, with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table. We are also saying Yes to transparency and accountability. We are saying Yes to safeguarding the taxpayers' funds, and ensuring that the taxpayer doesn't carry unnecessary costs. Yes to using taxpayers' funds for the next generation to provide healthcare, education and infrastructure investment. Yes to real changes in how the banking system workings and real changes in financial regulation.

    Is the underlined bit what the propertypin people are saying Yes to, or is it what you are saying Yes to?

    I'm opposed to NAMA, but I tend not to go on these marches as (it seems to me) they get bandwagoned by sectional interests. So I expect there'll be banners there from people protesting hospital closures / Welfare Cuts / Child Benefit Cuts / Thomas Cook supporters / Civil Service AntiPension Levy groups / Joe Higgins waffling on about Bin Taxes etc.

    So whilst I'm opposed to NAMA, I couldn't in good conscience associate with some of these groups.


  • Options
    #6
    eamonnm79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭eamonnm79


    Long Onion wrote: »
    To be perfectly honest, the things you are saying yes to are all very worthy but I don't see where the mutual exclusivity is coming from. If the banks are nationalised, the tax payer will still own the bad loans, the banks will still need capital and that will come in the form of Government Bonds (directly or indirectly). In fact, Nama acquiring the loans at a discount (any level of discount) is surely better than the tax payer acquiring the banks and carrying the liability for the original loan amounts.

    We can improve provision for healthcare, education and regulation without stopping NAMA.

    Nationalisation removes the huge issue of Overpaying for the loans. It will also mean that bond holders will have to pay their fair share for this mess.
    We do need a national asset manangement agency but it should be done only after nationalisation


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Nationalisation removes the huge issue of Overpaying for the loans. It will also mean that bond holders will have to pay their fair share for this mess.
    We do need a national asset manangement agency but it should be done only after nationalisation

    I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)

    As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.


  • Options
    #8
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Is the underlined bit what the propertypin people are saying Yes to, or is it what you are saying Yes to?

    I'm opposed to NAMA, but I tend not to go on these marches as (it seems to me) they get bandwagoned by sectional interests. So I expect there'll be banners there from people protesting hospital closures / Welfare Cuts / Child Benefit Cuts / Thomas Cook supporters / Civil Service AntiPension Levy groups / Joe Higgins waffling on about Bin Taxes etc.

    So whilst I'm opposed to NAMA, I couldn't in good conscience associate with some of these groups.

    While I obviously can't speak for everybody who posts on the Property Pin, the guys who attended the protest planning meeting were very clear in their view that the price to be paid for NAMA will manifest itself in a generation of more tax increases and more severe cutbacks to public services. We all agreed that tax increases and cutbacks would be necessary with or without NAMA to get the public finances back into order. But we felt that when the EUR90bn NAMA gamble inevitably loses, that these taxes and cutbacks would be greater than necessary to pay for NAMA's losses.

    Dave has made it clear on his interview, and we have also made it clear on the Facebook Group that we are not affiliating ourselves with any political parties or groups. The people involved in organising the protest are all capitalist in outlook, hence we do not support NAMA which is welfare for the banks and developers.

    I can assure you that we share your concerns about this protest being hijacked by socialist groups, and we will be taking steps to make sure that doesn't happen. We dont want to make it easy for the government or elements of the media to write off the protest as just another socialist or hippy march. We will be sending a clear signal that the Irish people will not be ignored or treated with contempt, and will not be told that NAMA is the only game in town and expected to just swallow it. :mad:


  • Options
    #9
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Long Onion wrote: »
    As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.
    Why should the general public compensate the owners of companies who took risks and lost?

    AIB and BOI took risks that failed to pay off. If those risks paid off do you think they'd be lining up to give their surplus to the state?

    That is the moral argument. The other argument is that there's no point in transferring money from one set of pockets (many of whom may well end up getting the basic state pension) and putting them into another. No net benefit.


  • Options
    #10
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Long Onion wrote: »
    I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)
    These are not liabilities. They are impaired assets. Some very strongly impaired to the point that they are worth next to nothing but they are not liabilities. Others are worth a bit more.

    If the banks are nationalised then we are less likely to overpay for these assets overall. If we do overpay then we will benefit when the the banks are reprivatised.


  • Options
    #11
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    Long Onion wrote: »
    I don't see how. If we nationalise the banks, we in effect take over the liability for the full amount loaned ot. At least the NAMA route we will only take on liability for 75ish% (depending on the final valuation)

    As for the bond holder issue - a huge amount of shareholders in the banks are large pension funds - a write off here will effect a huge portion of pensioners and workers across the state. Allowing bond holders to suufer a loss will not have any effect on the toxic loan issue.

    The NAMA proposal involves effectively guessing the value of the EUR90bn worth of bad loans. The government are determined to overpay for these loans. If we overpay, the taxpayer must absorbe these losses over the lifetime of NAMA. However if we underpay, we will have to provide further money to the banks to keep them running. So the taxpayer has the full downside exposure and no upside exposure.

    The amounts involved are huge. The Liam O'Carroll case is showing us just how little can be recovered from these loans and underlying property assets. The April emergency budget scraped together EUR3.5bn, and we all know how much that hurt our paychecks. This is EUR90bn of a gamble with no safeguards for the taxpayer.

    If we nationalise the banks, we will only suffer the losses that we absolutely need to. The gamble of trying to value the loans is taken out of the equation. We have exposure to the upside by means of our equity stake in the banks.

    I have highlighted in bold the flawed element of your logic. We take on the exact same EUR90bn of bad loans. These loans are actually an asset for the banks or for NAMA. The liabilites side of the equation is the bonds used to finance the loans. The government has already garaunteed the full bank's liabilities, which in hindsight could be considered a mistake. These liabilities will now have to be made good on, whether through NAMA or not.

    Where NAMA versus nationalisation differs is the critical valuation of loans. Nationalisation removes the massive inherent risk of this process, and ensures that the taxpayer will not pay more than is required to fix the banking system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    These are not liabilities. They are impaired assets. Some very strongly impaired to the point that they are worth next to nothing but they are not liabilities. Others are worth a bit more.

    If the banks are nationalised then we are less likely to overpay for these assets overall. If we do overpay then we will benefit when the the banks are reprivatised.

    Hmmmmm. I think lines are crossed here. Say AIB has lent 20 Billion to developers who are now distressed. If we nationalise the banks, we now take over the 20 Billion hole in the balance sheet. If those loans are mover to NAMA with a 25% haircut, we now only take over 15 Billion of bad loans, the bank carries the rest.

    When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank. If the banks are nationalised we will have to absorb the full extent of the loans granted.


  • Options
    #13
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    Long Onion wrote: »
    When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank.

    You could use a lesson in accounting.


  • Options
    #14
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    leonardjos wrote: »
    The NAMA proposal involves effectively guessing the value of the EUR90bn worth of bad loans. The government are determined to overpay for these loans. If we overpay, the taxpayer must absorbe these losses over the lifetime of NAMA. However if we underpay, we will have to provide further money to the banks to keep them running. So the taxpayer has the full downside exposure and no upside exposure.

    The amounts involved are huge. The Liam O'Carroll case is showing us just how little can be recovered from these loans and underlying property assets. The April emergency budget scraped together EUR3.5bn, and we all know how much that hurt our paychecks. This is EUR90bn of a gamble with no safeguards for the taxpayer.

    If we nationalise the banks, we will only suffer the losses that we absolutely need to. The gamble of trying to value the loans is taken out of the equation. We have exposure to the upside by means of our equity stake in the banks.

    I have highlighted in bold the flawed element of your logic. We take on the exact same EUR90bn of bad loans. These loans are actually an asset for the banks or for NAMA. The liabilites side of the equation is the bonds used to finance the loans. The government has already garaunteed the full bank's liabilities, which in hindsight could be considered a mistake. These liabilities will now have to be made good on, whether through NAMA or not.

    Where NAMA versus nationalisation differs is the critical valuation of loans. Nationalisation removes the massive inherent risk of this process, and ensures that the taxpayer will not pay more than is required to fix the banking system.


    I'm sorry but I just dont agree with you. The full 90bn will transfer to NAMA but the tax payer has only paid a % for these 'assets' so if the loans re never recovered we will only be short the % we paid, the Banks will have to absorb the difference between this sum and the original 90bn. If we nationalise the banks we carry the can for the full 90bn. The government guarantee scheme is due to end next year and will not be as comprehensive if renewed post NAMA on top of that, we have not even begun to see the full extent of the residential mortgage arrears, nationalisation would land us with all this also.

    I don't believe my logic is flawed at all - Nationalisation means taking €90bn of 'assets' for €90bn Nama means taking €90bn of assets for less than €90bn?


  • Options
    #15
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    leonardjos wrote: »
    You could use a lesson in accounting.


    Would you now count a loan to Liam Carroll as being an asset to your business - you could use a lesson in modern day realities - leave the semantics aside


  • Options
    #16
    egan007
    Registered Users Posts: 2,934 ✭✭✭egan007


    leonardjos wrote: »
    with temporary nationalisation as the best alternative currently on the table.

    Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha

    Ha

    Ha

    ha...

    good one....

    Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.


  • Options
    #17
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    Long Onion wrote: »
    Would you now count a loan to Liam Carroll as being an asset to your business - you could use a lesson in modern day realities - leave the semantics aside

    I'm sorry, but its not semantics. This bad loan is still an asset. It will need to be written down in value, but its still an asset.

    If it was a liability, it would mean that you owed further money to Liam Carroll.

    This argument would be funny if it wasn't so serious. EUR90bn is of utmost importance to the future of our country. I am all too aware of the stark realities of what we do next, whether that be NAMA or temporary nationalisation. This financial arrangments of this are quite complex, but you are not helping people to understand it by posting your flawed logic. :(


  • Options
    #18
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    egan007 wrote: »
    Ha, ha ha, ha ha ha ha ha

    Ha

    Ha

    ha...

    good one....

    Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

    Which private financial company is your favourite:

    Anglo Irish Bank, AIB, BOI, Irish Nationwide?

    Then I can choose which one to give examples of how great they were run :rolleyes:

    Actually I couldn't be bothered.


  • Options
    #19
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    leonardjos wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but its not semantics. This bad loan is still an asset. It will need to be written down in value, but its still an asset.

    If it was a liability, it would mean that you owed further money to Liam Carroll.

    This argument would be funny if it wasn't so serious. EUR90bn is of utmost importance to the future of our country. I am all too aware of the stark realities of what we do next, whether that be NAMA or temporary nationalisation. This financial arrangments of this are quite complex, but you are not helping people to understand it by posting your flawed logic. :(

    Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m. You are saying 'forget about that, sure you still have an asset of €1m'. The €900m is something i am going to have to write off at some stage in the future so to me at least, there is a liability. If NAMA is willing to pay less than the original loan amounts, it makes financial sense.

    I don't see how nationalisation is a better deal - the banks have already valued these loans at 100% when they gave them out, by nationalising now, we would be taking that value and (as you have skipped over) the large potential losses in the personal loan and mortgage books of the banks which are already under pressure.

    For me it comes down to this - the Banks have loaned €90bn which could potentially go bad - therefore they have a potential hole of €90bn in thier balance sheet, if we nationalise, we have to deal with potential liability of €90bn - this is logical, no?

    If NAMA buys the loans for, say €75bn, we now only deal with a potential liability to the tax payer of €75bn, the banks write off the balance so we lower our potential liability by €15bn plus avoid the retail and non-development loans which are also going bad at an increasing rate.


  • Options
    #20
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    Long Onion wrote: »
    Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m.

    Go play there instead, and leave reality to the grownups.

    Come back when you finish that accounting lesson.


  • Options
    #21
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    Mature of you good sir,

    You still haven't dealt with the issues raised, good luck with your march.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    eamonnm79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭eamonnm79


    Long Onion wrote: »
    Look at the reality of what happens - i loan you €1bn for land that is now only worth €1m. In my mind, I now have a liability of €900m. You are saying 'forget about that, sure you still have an asset of €1m'. The €900m is something i am going to have to write off at some stage in the future so to me at least, there is a liability. If NAMA is willing to pay less than the original loan amounts, it makes financial sense.

    I don't see how nationalisation is a better deal - the banks have already valued these loans at 100% when they gave them out, by nationalising now, we would be taking that value and (as you have skipped over) the large potential losses in the personal loan and mortgage books of the banks which are already under pressure.

    For me it comes down to this - the Banks have loaned €90bn which could potentially go bad - therefore they have a potential hole of €90bn in thier balance sheet, if we nationalise, we have to deal with potential liability of €90bn - this is logical, no?

    If NAMA buys the loans for, say €75bn, we now only deal with a potential liability to the tax payer of €75bn, the banks write off the balance so we lower our potential liability by €15bn plus avoid the retail and non-development loans which are also going bad at an increasing rate.

    Hi Long Onion.
    Your analysis leaves aout a very important group.
    The Bond holders and the Shareholders.
    They invested in Private companies that are now insolvent.
    They should all be loosing all of their money, but they are not.
    The government is propping up the otherwise dead banks and allowing them to make significant gains in the value of their shares.

    Think about the way they will be affected if nationalisation occours.


  • Options
    #23
    Long Onion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Long Onion


    eamonnm79 wrote: »
    Hi Long Onion.
    Your analysis leaves aout a very important group.
    The Bond holders and the Shareholders.
    They invested in Private companies that are now insolvent.
    They should all be loosing all of their money, but they are not.
    The government is propping up the otherwise dead banks and allowing them to make significant gains in the value of their shares.

    Think about the way they will be affected if nationalisation occours.

    Hi Eamonnm79,

    I did touch on it further back. This is one aspect that does carry a moral dilemma, for what it's worth, I do believe that the initial investment by bond and shareholders carried a risk and that in normal circumstances they should not be bailed out for backing the wrong horse. But I don't believe that forcing them to take a loss should be the defining factor in the matter.

    NAMA will have a side-effect of enriching them and morally this may be incorrect but I don't think this is enough of a reason to wade in and nationalise the banks thus exposing the tax payer to higher potential losses. Look at the continued re-capitaisation of Anglo, the loss making deposit interest rates it's paying, the mounting loan impairements.

    I think we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, this is NAMA. Didn't realise some would be so shirty


  • Options
    #24
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    Look, NAMA is just a vehicle for taking more money out of our pockets and those of our children and grandchildren and transferring it to a small section of society who have shown little regard for society as a whole.

    Maybe you want to pay an extra €2000 a year to go into the pockets of bank bondholders / shareholders, FF donors etc. Personally I don't. McCarthy came out this on rte morning and said that we will probably be nationalising the banks as well as having NAMA anyway.

    If we have to loan money to keep the banks afloat. They will have to pay it back to us. With NAMA they are hoping that they can bamboozle us with jargon telling us that we should pay the economic value [whatever that is] and not the market price i.e. massively overpay for bad assets.

    This kind of thinking was knocked on the head by the supreme and high court rulings on Liam Carroll's group hearings last week. His lawyers were described in the press as practically putting forward the same arguments as NAMA aplogists have, and they were shown to be equally as flimsy.


  • Options
    #25
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Long Onion wrote: »
    Hmmmmm. I think lines are crossed here. Say AIB has lent 20 Billion to developers who are now distressed. If we nationalise the banks, we now take over the 20 Billion hole in the balance sheet. If those loans are mover to NAMA with a 25% haircut, we now only take over 15 Billion of bad loans, the bank carries the rest.

    When I say liabilities here I am assuming that debts which have gone to distressed status are no longer assets but are now liabilities on the balance sheet of the bank. If the banks are nationalised we will have to absorb the full extent of the loans granted.
    No they are still assets. They are just worth a lot less than than the "book value". They might be worth close to zero in some cases but they don't confer obligations to pay anything on the owners of these assets so they are not liabilities. It is very important to understand the difference between assets and liabilities and why the government is not taking on liabilities but assets (impaired and sometimes worthless but assets nonetheless).


  • Options
    #26
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Long Onion wrote: »
    I think we have to choose between the lesser of two evils and in my opinion, this is NAMA. Didn't realise some would be so shirty
    But you have ignored or thrown back some of the attempts to respond to you.


  • Options
    #27
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    TV3 News have been covering the online 'No to NAMA' movement.

    This is a link to the video of the report on the TV3 website,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxA7wVxS17o


    The 'No to NAMA' Facebook Group gets a special mention.

    The report finishes by broadcasting the details of the street protest on 12th September. :)


  • Options
    #28
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I will only give you 1000 to 1 that SWP or whatever they are calling themselves lately are behind this.

    I think NAMA needs to be reviewed alright but I freakin' hate those bandwagon jumpers.

    DeV.


  • Options
    #29
    LostinBlanch
    Registered Users Posts: 2,908 ✭✭✭LostinBlanch


    You're not the only one.


  • Options
    #30
    leonardjos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 102 ✭✭leonardjos


    DeVore wrote: »
    I will only give you 1000 to 1 that SWP or whatever they are calling themselves lately are behind this.

    I think NAMA needs to be reviewed alright but I freakin' hate those bandwagon jumpers.

    The SWP have their own protest planned for a week later than ours.
    NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION
    PEOPLE POWER TO STOP THE CUTS

    BAIL OUT JOBS & SERVICES
    NOT THE BANKS
    NEED BEFORE GREED

    Saturday Sept 19th
    Assemble 1pm, Garden of Remembrance, Parnell Square, Dublin.
    BRING POTS AND PANS TO MAKE NOISE
    Called by the United Alliance Against Cuts.


    Dave Browne of www.irishpeopleunion.com and the rest of the people (from the Facebook Group and the Property Pin) at the planning meeting expressed our determination that the protest will not be hijacked by other political parties or union groups.

    We will be expressing to them in the run up to the protest, that banners for other groups will not be welcomed, and that anyone attending the march should do so as a concerned citizen with a clear 'No to NAMA' message.

    I hope this can put peoples' minds at ease regarding the protest. :cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    the butcher
    Registered Users Posts: 591 ✭✭✭the butcher


    egan007 wrote: »
    Because we all know that the state can run things better than private companies.

    And NAMA is going to be run by whom? Get your facts straight.

    Anyway this thread is on the protest. From what I've read it's strictly 'No To NAMA'. The government have given no thought to any other option available. NAMA in it's present form is a complete disaster.

    This is a chance for any individual to stand up and protest against NAMA. I dont want to read people moaning on other threads "My taxes have gone up", "I lost my job in the public sector", "Damn water charges", "I hate the new property tax", "Why are the banks putting up the rates" etc etc, like it or not NAMA in it's present form effects all of us in the future.


Advertisement