anyone here going to vote sinn féin?

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 07:41PM

Xclusiv Barber wrote: »

have you lived in iceland too? that 'when' you refer to will most likely not happen again in our lifetimes

Yeah, it looks like defaulting on banking debt in 2008 really screwed this country.... and they no longer have a massive big private bank debt hanging over them, so any taxes they raise, go to service SOVEREIGN debt. One other point to note, when the crises hit the country, they addressed it by firing those respoonsible, charging them with crimes...
What do we do, we pay those responsible massive golden handshakes...
Iceland also capped the salaries of the public representatives and the public service.... what do we do? We pay massive big golden handshakes with guaranteed pensions that the average Joe Bloggs in Ireland could only dream of....

http://tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?symbol=ISK
Iceland GDP Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Iceland expanded 1.19 percent in the third quarter of 2010 over the previous quarter.

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 07:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The frontline finance debate showed us that it's only €20 billion that SF want to default on anyway.
If you ask me,thats going to go the way of burden sharing with EU agreement and probably a lot more state debt too.
We just don't know yet.

What do those economists of which you speak,think of SF's strategy to run the country for the next 4 or 5 years?
They've evaluated that have they? Could you link to the analysis? Because we all want to know where the money's going to come from once the cuts are reversed.
We've seen a billion here and a billion there from that 48% tax rate and that wealth tax but after the nprs is miraculously used twice,to pay the 18 or 19 billion defecit this year and spend money on non earning infrastructure like schools and hospitals...
When thats done we borrow more do we? from bond markets already freaking out at our debt levels and the same ones we've just burned? further increasing the national debt by 20 billion a year plus interest or is there oil under parnell square or what?

Tell us..

It is quite straight forward ... but i know you will once again try to find fault with it, criticism is welcome by the way, but please dont personalise it

In business, if a company finds itself so far in debt, that it can no longer service those debts, they go to the creditors and agree discounts on those debts.... and agree to make the repayments at a slightly higher rate than they would otherwise have to pay. The creditors do not like it, but they see that it is better to keep the debtor in business so that they will get future business from that debtor knowing that
1) The creditors will get their money back in the long term through continuing to do business with that debtor (ie the Debtor stays in business, but only if its a viable business...
2) If they dont accept the loss, they will not get ANY of their money back.

So using this business Analogy.... think about SF's position.
1) They agree with the bond holders that they cannot afford to pay their bank debts (even though they should never have taken those debts in teh first place), but they tell the creditors that they will continue to pay the sovereign debts.
2) The creditors have a choice.... do they blacklist an historically sound debtor and never lend to them again.... or do they agree to the losses and make the sound business decsion to say that "Yes" we will lend to you again, because we know, other than on this occassion, we have always made money off you

Anybody with any business acumen knows that the lenders will see that the Irish people cannot afford to stay in business with this level of debt. They will know that if they ever want to make money off us in the future, the smart thing to do, is to accept the losses on the bad debt, and start lending again (charging a slightly higher than normal rate).

Pete_Cavan · 09-02-2011 07:59PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Please answer the question, why do all the international economists think we shouldnt take on the Banking debt... are they all wrong?

Please provide links to where all the international economists say we should default on bank debt and reject the EU/IMF bailout as per SFs plan.

Cal_Egle wrote: »

I dont know if you heard the news at 5:30, the black hole called the banks are requesting an additional 15 billion.... and hopefully there is light at the end of the tunnel, FG and FF said they wont give it to them ... although i think, that once the election is over, they will change their minds and give it to them.... You know what i am talking about (say anything to get elected, but once in power, fcuk the Irish and give the Banks what they want)....
Can i ask you to answer this for us ..... do you agree that the Irish state takes in 35 billion a year in taxes? and do you agree, that if we take on the 50 billion of banking debt, we will be paying this for the rest of our lives? would you agree that it is totally unacceptable for us to pay over 5 billion a year on interest and cpaital repayments for the Banking debt alone? ad last question, do you think we can afford this ?

You continue to ingore the fact that we have a €17bn gap between our national income and expenditure. Under SFs plan, unless we can find someone to lend us that money next year, and ever year after, we will have to slash €17bn from our expenditure to bring it in line with our income. So that €17bn less gardai, nurses, teachers, social welfare, gritting icy roads, rubbish collection, etc. etc. Cuts on that scale would destroy the economy. We need to the bailout money. There is no way around that.

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 08:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The frontline finance debate showed us that it's only €20 billion that SF want to default on anyway.
If you ask me,thats going to go the way of burden sharing with EU agreement and probably a lot more state debt too.
We just don't know yet.

What do those economists of which you speak,think of SF's strategy to run the country for the next 4 or 5 years?
They've evaluated that have they? Could you link to the analysis? Because we all want to know where the money's going to come from once the cuts are reversed.
We've seen a billion here and a billion there from that 48% tax rate and that wealth tax but after the nprs is miraculously used twice,to pay the 18 or 19 billion defecit this year and spend money on non earning infrastructure like schools and hospitals...
When thats done we borrow more do we? from bond markets already freaking out at our debt levels and the same ones we've just burned? further increasing the national debt by 20 billion a year plus interest or is there oil under parnell square or what?

Tell us..

Seriously, you think that there is only 20billion of subordinted debt??? seriously... you beleived the figures put up by Pat Kenny?
How do you explain the following.....
2 years ago, Ireland owed approx 40billion of sovereig debt, and right now, due to Government policy, the country is on hoc to the tune of 200billion .... can i ask you, did you see any castles of gold being built in the last 2 years? Where did all the debt come from ? and do you think as an average citizen, we should have to pay for this extra debt? Did you get anything from it?

09-02-2011 08:03PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

It is quite straight forward ... but i know you will once again try to find fault with it, criticism is welcome by the way, but please dont personalise it
In business, if a company finds itself so far in debt, that it can no longer service those debts, they go to the creditors and agree discounts on those debts.... and agree to make the repayments at a slightly higher rate than they would otherwise have to pay. The creditors do not like it, but they see that it is better to keep the debtor in business so that they will get future business from that debtor knowing that
1) The creditors will get their money back in the long term through continuing to do business with that debtor (ie the Debtor stays in business, but only if its a viable business...
2) If they dont accept the loss, they will not get ANY of their money back.

So using this business Analogy.... think about SF's position.
1) They agree with the bond holders that they cannot afford to pay their bank debts (even though they should never have taken those debts in teh first place), but they tell the creditors that they will continue to pay the sovereign debts.
2) The creditors have a choice.... do they blacklist an historically sound debtor and never lend to them again.... or do they agree to the losses and make the sound business decsion to say that "Yes" we will lend to you again, because we know, other than on this occassion, we have always made money off you

Anybody with any business acumen knows that the lenders will see that the Irish people cannot afford to stay in business with this level of debt. They will know that if they ever want to make money off us in the future, the smart thing to do, is to accept the losses on the bad debt, and start lending again (charging a slightly higher than normal rate).

I'm agree'ing with you on the level of debt over all especially the bank caused debt.Theres no argument there.
Where we part company is the silly notion that you can fund the states services permanently at the level we are at through international borrowing.
Thats also unsustainable.

To go back to your business strategy,it is like asking the banker to fund your business when it makes no money.
Would they? The answer is no.

09-02-2011 08:07PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Seriously, you think that there is only 20billion of subordinted debt??? seriously... you beleived the figures put up by Pat Kenny?
How do you explain the following.....
2 years ago, Ireland owed approx 40billion of sovereig debt, and right now, due to Government policy, the country is on hoc to the tune of 200billion .... can i ask you, did you see any castles of gold being built in the last 2 years? Where did all the debt come from ? and do you think as an average citizen, we should have to pay for this extra debt? Did you get anything from it?

Are you telling me that Pierse Doherty was wrong on the front line the other night when he agreed with Pat? or not informed enough?

Tipp Man · 09-02-2011 08:10PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Seriously, you think that there is only 20billion of subordinted debt??? seriously... you beleived the figures put up by Pat Kenny?
How do you explain the following.....
2 years ago, Ireland owed approx 40billion of sovereig debt, and right now, due to Government policy, the country is on hoc to the tune of 200billion .... can i ask you, did you see any castles of gold being built in the last 2 years? Where did all the debt come from ? and do you think as an average citizen, we should have to pay for this extra debt? Did you get anything from it?

Sorry you need to back up some of those numbers with solid facts, particularly the 200 billion you say that the country owes

2 years ago the national debt was about 50 billion, at year end 2010 it is 97 billion

See here for the numbers I am quoting http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 08:21PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Please provide links to where all the international economists say we should default on bank debt and reject the EU/IMF bailout as per SFs plan.

You continue to ingore the fact that we have a €17bn gap between our national income and expenditure. Under SFs plan, unless we can find someone to lend us that money next year, and ever year after, we will have to slash €17bn from our expenditure to bring it in line with our income. So that €17bn less gardai, nurses, teachers, social welfare, gritting icy roads, rubbish collection, etc. etc. Cuts on that scale would destroy the economy. We need to the bailout money. There is no way around that.

OK... i see an opprtunity for us to be good friends... because i know that you are asking me for Links to back up what i am saying about the international economists and finance experts... and i know that if i send you those links, you will turn your back on the establishment status quo parties .... am i correct ?

Secondly .... On the difference between expenditure and tax takes... SF are proposing the following.
They will reduce the Public Service by 2000 through natural attrition and vey targetted elimination of redundant positions within the Public service ... Personally, i think they should be targetting 10 times that number (so i do not agree with that policy alone).
They have costed that an increase to 48% in PAYE for all workers earning over 100k per year... (I am one of those folks Pete, so please, if i am willing to accept this, then so should any other good Irish worker).
For all those that have assets worth more than 1 million, they want t bring in a wealth tax. Considering that 20% of our population have over 80% of the wealth, i do not see anything unfair with this.
And like i mentioned in one of my previous posts, it was SF that forced Fianna Fail to split up all government print contracts so that no contract was worth more than 3 million Euro... what did this get us? It meant that the Irish government does not have to advertise these contracts to Europe. if SF continue this approach, whether in power or in opposition, it will mean that all the money the government spends (other than welfare and public service wages) can be spent in Ireland, will in itself stimulate the economy.
Remember, SF are the only big party getting all their election campaign videos etc made in Ireland, FF/FG/Labour all got US firms to handle theirs.... Just take a step back and see what is going on, who really cares about the Irish people. None of their TDs take home more than the average industial wage ... that is their level of commitment to their task of helping the people of Ireland...
You have FG saying they will cap their wages at 200k.... FF 230k and Labour havent given any numbers...
Do you hear my frustration. I work for a multi-national corporsation, i am not a socialist by nature (I swear this to you)... but when i look at the pure greed and the lies that we are being told by the other parties, and you and I are paying for it, it makes my blood boil.
I do not agree with all SFs policies... but i see the important ones for me, and the banking debt is one of them. I accept paying higher taxes (i dont like it), but i want to know that my Taxes are going to something better than paying corrupt politicians (and i mean this, any TD that allows any member of the Dail to earn more than 100k, with outrageous pensions paid earlier than 66 is corrupt, do you not agree) and that my Taxes are not going to pay off the debts of antother private institution. I said this before.... Let the failing banks fail, and let Ulster Bank and other banks take over the Irish market... If the government wants to guarantee all the deposits up to 100k in the failing banks, i have no issue with that either... and if you have over 100k, then that is your problem (only the first 100k should be guaranteed).

Pete_Cavan · 09-02-2011 08:25PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

OK... i see an opprtunity for us to be good friends... because i know that you are asking me for Links to back up what i am saying about the international economists and finance experts... and i know that if i send you those links, you will turn your back on the establishment status quo parties .... am i correct ?

Provide me the links and see what happens.

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Secondly .... On the difference between expenditure and tax takes... SF are proposing the following.
They will reduce the Public Service by 2000 through natural attrition and vey targetted elimination of redundant positions within the Public service ... Personally, i think they should be targetting 10 times that number (so i do not agree with that policy alone).
They have costed that an increase to 48% in PAYE for all workers earning over 100k per year... (I am one of those folks Pete, so please, if i am willing to accept this, then so should any other good Irish worker).
For all those that have assets worth more than 1 million, they want t bring in a wealth tax. Considering that 20% of our population have over 80% of the wealth, i do not see anything unfair with this.
And like i mentioned in one of my previous posts, it was SF that forced Fianna Fail to split up all government print contracts so that no contract was worth more than 3 million Euro... what did this get us? It meant that the Irish government does not have to advertise these contracts to Europe. if SF continue this approach, whether in power or in opposition, it will mean that all the money the government spends (other than welfare and public service wages) can be spent in Ireland, will in itself stimulate the economy.
Remember, SF are the only big party getting all their election campaign videos etc made in Ireland, FF/FG/Labour all got US firms to handle theirs.... Just take a step back and see what is going on, who really cares about the Irish people. None of their TDs take home more than the average industial wage ... that is their level of commitment to their task of helping the people of Ireland...
You have FG saying they will cap their wages at 200k.... FF 230k and Labour havent given any numbers...
Do you hear my frustration. I work for a multi-national corporsation, i am not a socialist by nature (I swear this to you)... but when i look at the pure greed and the lies that we are being told by the other parties, and you and I are paying for it, it makes my blood boil.
I do not agree with all SFs policies... but i see the important ones for me, and the banking debt is one of them. I accept paying higher taxes (i dont like it), but i want to know that my Taxes are going to something better than paying corrupt politicians (and i mean this, any TD that allows any member of the Dail to earn more than 100k, with outrageous pensions paid earlier than 66 is corrupt, do you not agree) and that my Taxes are not going to pay off the debts of antother private institution. I said this before.... Let the failing banks fail, and let Ulster Bank and other banks take over the Irish market... If the government wants to guarantee all the deposits up to 100k in the failing banks, i have no issue with that either... and if you have over 100k, then that is your problem (only the first 100k should be guaranteed).

None of that matters unless it close the €17bn gap between income and expenditure in budget 2012. Iceland has already proved we will not be able to go to the bond markets and after telling the IMF to p*ss off that will be the only option open to us.

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 08:29PM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry you need to back up some of those numbers with solid facts, particularly the 200 billion you say that the country owes

2 years ago the national debt was about 50 billion, at year end 2010 it is 97 billion

See here for the numbers I am quoting http://www.ntma.ie/NationalDebt/levelOfDebt.php

I agree that at the end of 2010, on the books, it was recorded that we owed 97 billion to BONDHOLDERS .... but you are ignoring the debts that NAMA is holding and please do not tell me that in the year 3000 we might make money off those assets... I think they are holding about 150 billion there (am i right?).... next, it came out yesterday, that the ECB has deposited 51 billion into Failing Irish banks... and the Irish government have guaranteed these deposits. We know these banks are failing despite the best efforts of the ECB and Irish government ... over 70 billion deposits in these same banks have been withdrawn by foreign financial institutions in the last 6 months (what is that telling you)....
So, you are correct, i probably underestimated how much sh*t we are in .. thanks for letting me know :eek:

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 08:32PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Provide me the links and see what happens.

None of that matters unless it close the €17bn gap between income and expenditure in budget 2012. Iceland has already proved we will not be able to go to the bond markets and after telling the IMF to p*ss off that will be the only option open to us.

Did you not read my previous post about the lies that are being told about Iceland in the last few posts.... Icelands economy grew at 1.7% in the third Quarter 2010 (only 18 months after their default). We havent defaulted and our economy is expected to grow at 1% in 2011.... what does this tell you :cool:

Tipp Man · 09-02-2011 08:33PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

SNIP, i have no issue with that either... and if you have over 100k, then that is your problem (only the first 100k should be guaranteed).

Do you have any idea of the amount it would cost the government if it let the Irish banks fold and had to pay out the guaranteed deposits??

guess what its huge - many many billions - between 85 and 100 billion is on deposit in Irish banks by Irish householders

what about companies with deposits - do you just let them go? If so how can the thousands of small companies who have cash in the bank survive when that cash is wiped out??

Pete_Cavan · 09-02-2011 08:34PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Did you not read my previous post about the lies that are being told about Iceland in the last few posts.... Icelands economy grew at 1.7% in the third Quarter 2010 (only 18 months after their default). We havent defaulted and our economy is expected to grow at 1% in 2011.... what does this tell you :cool:

That tells you nothing. As a proportion of their GDP, their bailout was 38.7% - ours is 41.9%. Not much of a difference, and that assumes we use all of ours.

Still waiting for those links...

Tipp Man · 09-02-2011 08:35PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

I agree that at the end of 2010, on the books, it was recorded that we owed 97 billion to BONDHOLDERS .... but you are ignoring the debts that NAMA is holding and please do not tell me that in the year 3000 we might make money off those assets... I think they are holding about 150 billion there (am i right?).... next, it came out yesterday, that the ECB has deposited 51 billion into Failing Irish banks... and the Irish government have guaranteed these deposits. We know these banks are failing despite the best efforts of the ECB and Irish government ... over 70 billion deposits in these same banks have been withdrawn by foreign financial institutions in the last 6 months (what is that telling you)....
So, you are correct, i probably underestimated how much sh*t we are in .. thanks for letting me know :eek:

Sorry but thats not back up

Its back of a fag pack calculations

some hard evidence please -

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 08:36PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Yeah, it looks like defaulting on banking debt in 2008 really screwed this country.... and they no longer have a massive big private bank debt hanging over them, so any taxes they raise, go to service SOVEREIGN debt. One other point to note, when the crises hit the country, they addressed it by firing those respoonsible, charging them with crimes...
What do we do, we pay those responsible massive golden handshakes...
Iceland also capped the salaries of the public representatives and the public service.... what do we do? We pay massive big golden handshakes with guaranteed pensions that the average Joe Bloggs in Ireland could only dream of....

http://tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Growth.aspx?symbol=ISK
Iceland GDP Growth Rate

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Iceland expanded 1.19 percent in the third quarter of 2010 over the previous quarter.

we could hav a fantastic debate about iceland, before and after , theres an idea for a separate thread that could run and run, but i must say i massively agree with what you say about how we have dealt with those responsible in our country, (or haven't). Sean fitzpatrick should be fu[king hung, i wont go any further off topic by drawing up the list for the hangman which would be huge.(another idea for a thread?) i'd bring popcorn.

Tipp Man · 09-02-2011 08:36PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Did you not read my previous post about the lies that are being told about Iceland in the last few posts.... Icelands economy grew at 1.7% in the third Quarter 2010 (only 18 months after their default). We havent defaulted and our economy is expected to grow at 1% in 2011.... what does this tell you :cool:

Ah unemployment in Iceland increased by 253% between 2008 and 2010

What does that tell you???

Davypat · 09-02-2011 08:49PM

shtemcguire wrote: »

they have policies that want to help the poor and they are republican which is good

Would if I could but we have no Candidate.

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 08:51PM

Buceph wrote: »

What are you talking about? That Iceland have it hard? I know that. I'm just saying that when Iceland has wealth generation within it's own economy and has an ....

Apology. Misread this as when iceland has wealth. Gremlins at my end today. Plus prob need new glasses! x.b.

niallers1 · 09-02-2011 08:54PM

johngalway wrote: »

No. I don't believe in wasting my vote.

The only vote wasted is a vote not cast.

It's not about backing the "winning" team. It's about voting for what you believe will be the best for you, your family and your country.

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 09:03PM

Iceland may be showing a stronger hand than us in dealing with the fallout. (And faster accumulating numbers out of work.) i dont deny that. I'd hang the fu(kers responsible here. but why didn't the marvels of the insular economy help in some small tiny way to prevent iceland fu(king itself over in the first place as anyone who has experienced their economy in person and not out of a book or link or report vehemently backs up

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 09:07PM

niallers1 wrote: »

The only vote wasted is a vote not cast.

It's not about backing the "winning" team. It's about voting for what you believe will be the best for you, your family and your country.

SPOT ON !!!

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 09:16PM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Ah unemployment in Iceland increased by 253% between 2008 and 2010

What does that tell you???

and what did ours go up Einstein (from 4% to 13.7%):p ... and we havent defaulted yet ....

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 09:17PM

Xclusiv Barber wrote: »

Iceland may be showing a stronger hand than us in dealing with the fallout. (And faster accumulating numbers out of work.) i dont deny that. I'd hang the fu(kers responsible here. but why didn't the marvels of the insular economy help in some small tiny way to prevent iceland fu(king itself over in the first place as anyone who has experienced their economy in person and not out of a book or link or report vehemently backs up

Dude, they had the same problem as us.... unregulated banks.... except Iceland didnt pay their waste of a space regulator a 1.3million golden handshake .... they jailed him

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 09:19PM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Sorry but thats not back up

Its back of a fag pack calculations

some hard evidence please -

ahhh doubting Tomas ..... but hopefully you will read this article with an open mind
Financial Times
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/02/09/483261/irish-bank-bond-haircuts-by-the-numbers/

Damning editorial in the NY times in May2010 and just think how much things have worsened since then
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/irish-miracle-or-mirage/

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 09:25PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

and what did ours go up Einstein (from 4% to 13.7%):p ... and we havent defaulted yet ....

just differing degrees of being totally fu(ked. Suppose we default. Its a theory, and its not insane. Do we go the whole hog then, fu(k the zero credit rating, fu(k the EU, fu(k the US market asia etc etc etc, cos we'll go it alone. And fu(k the euro cos we'll bring back the punt. Okay. Man , aren't we burning a sh1t lot of bridges, looking to the future?

09-02-2011 09:25PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

ahhh doubting Tomas ...../

We know that something is going to have to be done on the sum of the debt.
However...and again...

Those links don't answer the questions posed to you.
The question is will bond markets be so kind as to out of the kindness of their hearts continue to pay for 20 billions more than we earn each year plus interest with no way of paying that back either?

You and SF seem to think they will too.
Thats up there with cinderella,Jack's beanstalk and peter pan.

Xclusiv Barber · 09-02-2011 09:36PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

Dude, they had the same problem as us.... unregulated banks.... except Iceland didnt pay their waste of a space regulator a 1.3million golden handshake .... they jailed him

indeed. I'd hang our regulator, and seanie fitz and his prank monkey david and hosts of others, but as others have suggested, an insular economy is not the solution, it wasn't the problem in the first place for iceland, as equally our domestic and foreign economic policy wasn't singularly and solely responsible for our mess. Regulator, banks, government, property, and an all too large proportion of the irish population burying collective heads in the sand while knowing we were totally fu(king losing the run of ourselves. I disagree with you in places, i agree in others. I'd imagine we'd be in the same trench, as we all need to be, ultimately were all on the same side, ie the mugs getting rogered senseless by the state which will never change.

Tipp Man · 09-02-2011 09:41PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

ahhh doubting Tomas ..... but hopefully you will read this article with an open mind
Financial Times
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/02/09/483261/irish-bank-bond-haircuts-by-the-numbers/

Damning editorial in the NY times in May2010 and just think how much things have worsened since then
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/irish-miracle-or-mirage/

No sign of 200 billion (the number you quoted earlier) in either of those pieces

Nothing in either article suggests rejecting the IMF bailout which is a clear policy of SF

Pete_Cavan · 09-02-2011 09:41PM

Cal_Egle wrote: »

ahhh doubting Tomas ..... but hopefully you will read this article with an open mind
Financial Times
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/02/09/483261/irish-bank-bond-haircuts-by-the-numbers/

Damning editorial in the NY times in May2010 and just think how much things have worsened since then
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/irish-miracle-or-mirage/

Nothing in there recommending defaulting on bank debt and rejecting the IMF bailout. One article does say "the government should wind down existing banks in a “bad bank," while moving their deposit base and profitable businesses into new, well-capitalized banks" which is what FG, and AFAIK Lab, want to do. Nowhere is it suggested that SFs plan would work. As already pointed out to you, Iceland proves it wont.

Cal_Egle · 09-02-2011 09:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We know that something is going to have to be done on the sum of the debt.
However...and again...

Those links don't answer the questions posed to you.
The question is will bond markets be so kind as to out of the kindness of their hearts continue to pay for 20 billions more than we earn each year plus interest with no way of paying that back either?

You and SF seem to think they will too.
Thats up there with cinderella,Jack's beanstalk and peter pan.

OK.... a few folks are asking me if SF have any plans to burn the lenders who lend us money to service the country ...... Long story short is no.
SF do not have any plans to default on any loans taken out that are our own Sovereign debt, and this is the reason, the bond holders will still lend to us .... But i read a few comments from "pay for the failed bank debts" parties, asking and stating that we will not get any money in the future ..... think about this ....
If i owe you 90 euro, and i am asking you for a lend of 16-18 euro with the clear promise ... and demonstrated record of ALAWYS paying the interest i owe to you , will you not continue to lend to me ?
and i know that someone is going to ask about the bank debt, and the money owed on it.... let me say this to you....
I owe you 90 euro, i pay you the interest on that 90 euro every 3 months (never missing a payment)... one night i am out on the p*ss with you and while I am very very drunk on FF p*ss water, i tell you that i will also pay the debts belonging to my friend (my friend is in the army and goes by the name private banks) and that private Banks doesnt have to pay you any more of the money he owes you back .... would you really expect me to pay his debts to you when i sober up (get off the FF sauce so to speak).... Really, would you expect it? Now, if you saw me out on the sauce again with private banks and you saw me lending him more money on top of what he already owes you .... then you would in reality start charging me a higher rate of interest on the 90 euro, as you would be scared out of your pants that i am becoming an alco like my friend private banks (addicted to credit/craic as well)....
Now ... i sober up and i go to you open an honest, after sobering up, i tell you straight faced... i will never hang around with private banks, i will not drink like that again, and in fact, i am going to reduce my spending on a yearly basis, would you not respect me more??? Would you not say to yourself, "At last the stupid fecker is seeing sense" and that i am a stalwart business partner again???

anyone here going to vote sinn féin?

Comments