Taoiseach speech in Davros

jank · 28-01-2012 05:35PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Enda on T.V. 3 News trying to back out gracefully. Two-faced wee upstart.

Yes, how dare he tell the truth..:rolleyes:

tayto lover · 28-01-2012 05:42PM

jank wrote: »

Yes, how dare he tell the truth..:rolleyes:

So if that was the truth what was the pre-budget speech ?
Only one of them can be true. You can roll your ears now too.

Mr.Micro · 28-01-2012 05:51PM

jank wrote: »

Yes, how dare he tell the truth..:rolleyes:

Yes it is the truth....and nobody likes the truth. The greed was endemic here from the bottom to the top. It makes me laugh when there was so much fuss made of what he said. I would love to hear what those who took umbrage believe it was, other than greed.

tayto lover · 28-01-2012 05:55PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes it is the truth....and nobody likes the truth. The greed was endemic here from the bottom to the top. It makes me laugh when there was so much fuss made of what he said. I would love to hear what those who took umbrage believe it was, other than greed.

What was his pre-budget speech then ? Both cannot be true.

Liam Byrne · 28-01-2012 08:49PM

jank wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm responsible for debts that I ran up

Fair enough.

And because Kenny is wrong, those debts are manageable.

I'm not responsible for debts Ahern & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Quinn & Co ran up

I'm not responsible for debts Fitzpatrick & Anglo ran up

I'm not responsible for debts that Kenny runs up by breaking his own pay cap and refusing to reign in waste

So I'll pay mine, Mr Kenny.

Anything else is your own responsibility. And if you can't manage to do the job you promised (burn bondholders, not raise taxes, lead with ethics, honesty and fairness) then shut up, resign and let someone who will do so have the job.

Maybe we should put you in charge Liam.

Well I can guarantee that I'd speak the truth at all times and work for (non-greedy) ordinary people - something sadly lacking in Leinster House these days.

Good loser · 28-01-2012 10:22PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I can guarantee that I'd speak the truth at all times and work for (non-greedy) ordinary people - something sadly lacking in Leinster House these days.

From your innumerable posts I doubt it.

You're exceptionally self centred; you judge people and events solely on how they fit into your narrow world view.

Reflect how often you use the first person personal pronouns.

As a dictator maybe - on an island of one?

jank · 29-01-2012 04:44AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I can guarantee that I'd speak the truth at all times and work for (non-greedy) ordinary people - something sadly lacking in Leinster House these days.

I have no idea what you stand for apart from being anti-FF, FG, SF, Labour...
It is very easy to be against something, much harder to be for something. I sometimes think you don't live in reality.

meglome · 29-01-2012 06:02AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I can guarantee that I'd speak the truth at all times and work for (non-greedy) ordinary people - something sadly lacking in Leinster House these days.

Just to add what others have said... you think that the people of Ireland are looking for the truth? I think we are currently spectacularly good at ignoring the truth and blaming others for what happened.

Sand · 29-01-2012 04:05PM

Well regardless of the "truth" of Endas statement ( which contradicts the "truth" of his earlier claims) it was an incredibly stupid, dumb, foolish, idiotic thing to say as it pandered directly to the stupid, dumb, foolish, idiotic narrative (its all the peripheries fault) which the core politicians are engaging in to avoid dealing with the problem.

I get that there is a self-loathing constituency out there who want Ireland to get the worst deal possible, who believe that Ireland deserves the worst deal possible. As such, there will always be some welcome for comments like Endas where he tells the entire world leadership that its all Irelands fault and we dont deserve any help at all.

However, Enda is actually elected and paid to get the best deal possible for Ireland regardless of morality. Look at Merkel - she is out to get the best deal possible for the German people regardless of what is fair or unfair, right or wrong, deserved or undeserved. It is very difficult to see how Enda can feed the sort of dumb core analysis that the crisis is caused solely by greedy, feckless peripheries and then be able to extract any sort of deal from the core.

The first step to getting any sort of useful deal is *challenging* the narrative being set by the core - not supporting it. We here can argue over if "we all partied!!!" is in anyway valid (who is "we"?) but we are anonymous posters on an internet discussion board - Enda is the fricking leader of the country, speaking to the assembled world media and leadership. I struggle to comprehend how this man manages to dress himself in the morning...

meglome · 29-01-2012 04:21PM

Sand wrote: »

Well regardless of the "truth" of Endas statement ( which contradicts the "truth" of his earlier claims) it was an incredibly stupid, dumb, foolish, idiotic thing to say as it pandered directly to the stupid, dumb, foolish, idiotic narrative (its all the peripheries fault) which the core politicians are engaging in to avoid dealing with the problem.

I get that there is a self-loathing constituency out there who want Ireland to get the worst deal possible, who believe that Ireland deserves the worst deal possible. As such, there will always be some welcome for comments like Endas where he tells the entire world leadership that its all Irelands fault and we dont deserve any help at all.

Oh the Irish have plenty of self loathing but I'm not buying your point at all. The European politicians believe we went mad borrowing, the independent report the government had done said we went mad. It's the truth and I'm betting it went down well in Davros. Sure there's an element of playing to the crowd but I think it was a good idea.

Sand · 29-01-2012 04:25PM

Oh the Irish have plenty of self loathing but I'm not buying your point at all. The European politicians believe we went mad borrowing, the independent report the government had done said we went mad. It's the truth and I'm betting it went down well in Davros. Sure there's an element of playing to the crowd but I think it was a good idea.

Of coure it went down well - it helped remove pressure on the core. They could point to Enda's remarks and say "See - Even the Irish admit it was their own dumb fault. So why should Germany have to pay?" Enda is going to walk into a room with Merkel and try get a deal where Germany does pay - and Merkel is going to say "Sorry - this is your fault. You said so yourself. Why should Germany pay?". And if she doesnt she is going to be hampered by rival politicians and tabloids in Germany which will.

There is a narrative that suits Germany - Enda should be challenging it as that narrative is not in Irelands interests. This is not about morality. Its about results.

Liam Byrne · 30-01-2012 11:09AM

jank wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well I can guarantee that I'd speak the truth at all times and work for (non-greedy) ordinary people - something sadly lacking in Leinster House these days.

I have no idea what you stand for apart from being anti-FF, FG, SF, Labour...
It is very easy to be against something, much harder to be for something. I sometimes think you don't live in reality.

I sometimes WISH I didn't have to.

I'm "against" corruption and unfairness - it's up to the parties to decide whether their policies coincide with that.

Can you show me anything that makes any of the above worth voting for ?

Scofflaw · 30-01-2012 12:28PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes it is the truth....and nobody likes the truth. The greed was endemic here from the bottom to the top. It makes me laugh when there was so much fuss made of what he said. I would love to hear what those who took umbrage believe it was, other than greed.

1. Fear. And it only takes a smallish number of the greedy to put the fear that they'll be left behind into the majority, particularly when the greedy were being lauded as successful in the media. There was the fear that if you didn't get onto the property ladder right now, you never would, or you'd only be able to afford a one-bed wooden shack in the Coombe. The belief that this is how things are being done, that owning a better house, aspiring to a yet better house, moving up, having a holiday house, are all normal, and that people who don't have those things are losers.

2. Peer pressure. There was a lot of pressure on those who didn't buy in - the conventional Irish wisdom in respect of houses, the social stigma attached to renting over the age of 20, the social exclusion of not being able to talk the property talk. And perhaps the pressure people put on their friends and acquaintances when they've committed to what they're worried may be a poor choice and want the comfort of knowing you're not contradicting their decision. People going to what are likely to be bad parties are always much keener to talk their friends into coming than people going to what they know will be a good party. And it was easy to give in, because it was made easy by the banks.

I suspect that if you surveyed the reasons for buying in to the bubble, you'd come out with more fear and succumbing to social pressure than you would greed. It only takes a few greedy and loud individuals to move the many, but that doesn't mean the many were greedy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UDP · 30-01-2012 12:33PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect that if you surveyed the reasons for buying in to the bubble, you'd come out with more fear and succumbing to social pressure than you would greed. It only takes a few greedy and loud individuals to move the many, but that doesn't mean the many were greedy.

There was a lot of greed. That greed was often fueled by social pressure but when you had people saying "what are you doing renting? Renting is dead money" and the whole idea of buying your first place and then selling it on after a few years for a good few thousand euros profit which you could then put towards a nicer place that you would settle in - both of them are greed whatever about the social pressure.

Scofflaw · 30-01-2012 01:04PM

UDP wrote: »

There was a lot of greed. That greed was often fueled by social pressure but when you had people saying "what are you doing renting? Renting is dead money" and the whole idea of buying your first place and then selling it on after a few years for a good few thousand euros profit which you could then put towards a nicer place that you would settle in - both of them are greed whatever about the social pressure.

I wouldn't agree. If the motivation there isn't the "few thousand euros profit" in itself then the motivation isn't greed for the profit. And I don't think most people were greedy for the "profit" on selling a home - aside from anything else, unless you did it repeatedly on a sort of semi-professional basis it wasn't much compensation for the hassle involved.

For most people I think the "profit" was partly a sweetener and partly a way of increasing the fear - a case of "if you don't do this you will be passed out by people who do". I'd say the main driver was social anxiety (or status anxiety, more specifically).

And "rent is dead money" is alive and well yet, even in the current market where prices are falling annually by amounts that exceed annual rents. It's not a rational "greed" mantra, but an entirely irrational mantra of fear - telling you that if you spend your money on rent you won't be able to afford a house. And people who can't afford a house are losers, pure and simple.

cordially,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart · 30-01-2012 01:30PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

1. Fear. And it only takes a smallish number of the greedy to put the fear that they'll be left behind into the majority, particularly when the greedy were being lauded as successful in the media. There was the fear that if you didn't get onto the property ladder right now, you never would, or you'd only be able to afford a one-bed wooden shack in the Coombe. The belief that this is how things are being done, that owning a better house, aspiring to a yet better house, moving up, having a holiday house, are all normal, and that people who don't have those things are losers.

I suspect that if you surveyed the reasons for buying in to the bubble, you'd come out with more fear and succumbing to social pressure than you would greed. It only takes a few greedy and loud individuals to move the many, but that doesn't mean the many were greedy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Spot-on,no bother and correct.

It's quite sobering to note that whilst our boom-time Property Development and Bulding industry was flying along,it's marketing was almost entirely based upon this "Get on the ladder" issue or the concurrent appeal of "Luxury Living for the masses" which seemed to play upon some inherent connection to British Landlordism or Famine Time memories....

The removal of almost all property associated charges and responsibilities served to draw ever more folks into the "sure'n ye just can't lose" world of being your own boss.

Property Ownership,free of responsibility,without encumbrances or any sort was suddenly available to us all.

Eventually,if left to its own devices,Ireland would morph into a version of Switzerland,with 4 million wee statelets,each fully self-reliant...eh Ted...

I'm afraid to me,it always seemed more Swaziland than SWitzerland,as an entire generation,fed on the Magic Beans theories of SSIA's and Bookies Winnings simply crammed into the two-man tent to put their deposits down on "The Future".

I was always fascinated by the knowledge that far across the sea's,millions of our new European neighbours had lived succesful,productive and capable lives entirely in rented accomodation....?

WTF....how could this be......?

Nobody ever,in my experience,allowed this aspect of being "European" to be teased out or even admitted to......how come our German,French,Dutch or Belgian Busdriver,Mechanic or Doctor was'nt living in a Place of their own...???

On rare occasions,the issue might arise over after-dinner drinks on the patio,it was generally portrayed as some form of inherent "boring" gene possessed by these folks,particularly the Germans,who could'nt possibly be enjoying themselves in a clean,well maintained and affordable RENTED apartment for their entire lives.

No,for sure,we had it sussed.....a place of your own,everybodys entitlement and now available at an Estate Agent near YOU !.

It's like waking up from a bad-dream and suddenly realising it's become reality !!!

Where's Charlie McCreevy when we need him ?

UDP · 30-01-2012 01:41PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. If the motivation there isn't the "few thousand euros profit" in itself then the motivation isn't greed for the profit. And I don't think most people were greedy for the "profit" on selling a home - aside from anything else, unless you did it repeatedly on a sort of semi-professional basis it wasn't much compensation for the hassle involved.

People believed, from what I could see, that they could make a quick buck from the first house they buy in order to jump up the "ladder" to a bigger house. This was looking to go the easy route - which is greed.

Scofflaw wrote: »

For most people I think the "profit" was partly a sweetener and partly a way of increasing the fear - a case of "if you don't do this you will be passed out by people who do". I'd say the main driver was social anxiety (or status anxiety, more specifically).

I dont think it was just a sweetner - it was a means to jump up the ladder in order to own a larger asset without having to save up the difference - a quick win. They didn't realise they were in fact taking a large investment gamble as they thought it was a no-lose scenario.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And "rent is dead money" is alive and well yet, even in the current market where prices are falling annually by amounts that exceed annual rents. It's not a rational "greed" mantra, but an entirely irrational mantra of fear - telling you that if you spend your money on rent you won't be able to afford a house. And people who can't afford a house are losers, pure and simple.

The rent is dead money argument is still alive but its a case of they dont want to be giving money to a landlord to pay their mortgage when they could be paying their own mortgage. Again this is greed i.e. taking a risk to try and get extra benefit.

paddyandy · 30-01-2012 03:09PM

Who'd be in politics these days...he has a dreadful job trying to make the best out of it all .

Scofflaw · 30-01-2012 03:33PM

UDP wrote: »

People believed, from what I could see, that they could make a quick buck from the first house they buy in order to jump up the "ladder" to a bigger house. This was looking to go the easy route - which is greed.

I dont think it was just a sweetner - it was a means to jump up the ladder in order to own a larger asset without having to save up the difference - a quick win. They didn't realise they were in fact taking a large investment gamble as they thought it was a no-lose scenario.

The rent is dead money argument is still alive but its a case of they dont want to be giving money to a landlord to pay their mortgage when they could be paying their own mortgage. Again this is greed i.e. taking a risk to try and get extra benefit.

I don't think any of those statements hold water. Is using the stairs rather than free climbing up the outside of my building "greed" simply because it's the easy route? Is wanting to own a house - and pay interest to the bank, and a payment to the builder or previous owner - greedy in itself?

You've more or less talked your argument round to a position where wanting to own a house has to be greedy in itself, which ignores any other possible reason for doing so. And there are many, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UDP · 30-01-2012 04:34PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think any of those statements hold water. Is using the stairs rather than free climbing up the outside of my building "greed" simply because it's the easy route? Is wanting to own a house - and pay interest to the bank, and a payment to the builder or previous owner - greedy in itself?

Borrowing excessively to purchase something you dont need in order to make easy money is greed. Stupidity does not make something not greed - its the intent that does.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You've more or less talked your argument round to a position where wanting to own a house has to be greedy in itself, which ignores any other possible reason for doing so. And there are many, after all.

Yes, there are many reasons. You managed yourself to narrow it down to two reasons yourself which also ignored any other possible reason.

You said simply Fear and Peer Pressure but you ignore there was an aspect of greed in there - of trying to make a quick buck and/or thinking they were living free of rent because they thought they could just pay their mortgage which was around the same amount as rent anyway and then sell their property at a profit so it was a win-win situation for them - no "dead" money.

Greed did not just apply to purchasing property either. People wanted excesses in everything including multiple holidays, nice cars and other things they didn't need but spent the money (often loaned money) on anyway. People living beyond their means was being greedy.

There was an element of greed here no matter which way you look at it - I dont think it was the only reason or there in every case but it was present in a huge amount of cases from my experience, which like yours is limited to our perception of what we saw around us and what we saw from friends and family etc.

Liam Byrne · 30-01-2012 07:53PM

UDP wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think any of those statements hold water. Is using the stairs rather than free climbing up the outside of my building "greed" simply because it's the easy route? Is wanting to own a house - and pay interest to the bank, and a payment to the builder or previous owner - greedy in itself?

Borrowing excessively to purchase something you dont need in order to make easy money is greed. Stupidity does not make something not greed - its the intent that does.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You've more or less talked your argument round to a position where wanting to own a house has to be greedy in itself, which ignores any other possible reason for doing so. And there are many, after all.

Yes, there are many reasons. You managed yourself to narrow it down to two reasons yourself which also ignored any other possible reason.

You said simply Fear and Peer Pressure but you ignore there was an aspect of greed in there - of trying to make a quick buck and/or thinking they were living free of rent because they thought they could just pay their mortgage which was around the same amount as rent anyway and then sell their property at a profit so it was a win-win situation for them - no "dead" money.

Greed did not just apply to purchasing property either. People wanted excesses in everything including multiple holidays, nice cars and other things they didn't need but spent the money (often loaned money) on anyway. People living beyond their means was being greedy.

There was an element of greed here no matter which way you look at it - I dont think it was the only reason or there in every case but it was present in a huge amount of cases from my experience, which like yours is limited to our perception of what we saw around us and what we saw from friends and family etc.

What about those of us who bought a hone with no intention of ever moving or selling ?

How do you make out we were greedy, since your "quick buck" isn't even a 0.000001% factor in that equation ?

Scofflaw · 31-01-2012 05:26PM

UDP wrote: »

Borrowing excessively to purchase something you dont need in order to make easy money is greed. Stupidity does not make something not greed - its the intent that does.

An intent which you have read into the situation but not proven.

UDP wrote: »

Yes, there are many reasons. You managed yourself to narrow it down to two reasons yourself which also ignored any other possible reason.

You said simply Fear and Peer Pressure but you ignore there was an aspect of greed in there - of trying to make a quick buck and/or thinking they were living free of rent because they thought they could just pay their mortgage which was around the same amount as rent anyway and then sell their property at a profit so it was a win-win situation for them - no "dead" money.

Greed did not just apply to purchasing property either. People wanted excesses in everything including multiple holidays, nice cars and other things they didn't need but spent the money (often loaned money) on anyway. People living beyond their means was being greedy.

There was an element of greed here no matter which way you look at it - I dont think it was the only reason or there in every case but it was present in a huge amount of cases from my experience, which like yours is limited to our perception of what we saw around us and what we saw from friends and family etc.

I haven't suggested there was no greed - I suggested there were other possible motives, something you had excluded. As it happens, I think those motives were probably more prevalent than greed in the public in general, but as you say that's a matter of opinion, although I think my view is probably better supported. What's not a matter of opinion is that greed wasn't the only or universal motive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

UDP · 31-01-2012 06:32PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

An intent which you have read into the situation but not proven.

Its all opinion unless many studies are performed so anything anyone says about the situation is only opinion. Enda Kenny gave his opinion which many people agree with. Of course those that are now in negative equity who realise they made a stupid investment (there are probably many people like this) are never going to agree that greed was partly (if not majorly) a motive if in fact it was in their case.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't suggested there was no greed - I suggested there were other possible motives, something you had excluded. As it happens, I think those motives were probably more prevalent than greed in the public in general, but as you say that's a matter of opinion, although I think my view is probably better supported. What's not a matter of opinion is that greed wasn't the only or universal motive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, this is all opinion. You have no more facts to back up your opinion than I have to back up mine. There are lots of motives and greed was definitely one of them. From what I can see from friends and family etc greed was often a prevalent factor. Remember we are not having the issues with out banks etc caused by those who are repaying their loans etc. It is those (inc businesses) who are going bankrupt or are in massive arrears who are causing a large part of the problem so I am not calling those who can pay back their loans greedy.

Taking out a loan you cannot afford to pay back is greed and living beyond your means is greed. Giving out loans that are too large to people who cannot afford them (risky loans) in the hope of making money is greed. Building houses when you dont have a sound business plan to sell them is greed. Setting government policies that does not discourage all of the above in the hopes of staying in power is greed. and so on...

Scofflaw · 31-01-2012 06:40PM

UDP wrote: »

Its all opinion unless many studies are performed so anything anyone says about the situation is only opinion. Enda Kenny gave his opinion which many people agree with. Of course those that are now in negative equity who realise they made a stupid investment (there are probably many people like this) are never going to agree that greed was partly (if not majorly) a motive if in fact it was in their case.

Yes, this is all opinion. You have no more facts to back up your opinion than I have to back up mine. There are lots of motives and greed was definitely one of them. From what I can see from friends and family etc greed was often a prevalent factor. Remember we are not having the issues with out banks etc caused by those who are repaying their loans etc. It is those (inc businesses) who are going bankrupt or are in massive arrears who are causing a large part of the problem so I am not calling those who can pay back their loans greedy.

Taking out a loan you cannot afford to pay back is greed and living beyond your means is greed. Giving out loans that are too large to people who cannot afford them (risky loans) in the hope of making money is greed. Building houses when you dont have a sound business plan to sell them is greed. Setting government policies that does not discourage all of the above in the hopes of staying in power is greed. and so on...

I suppose that if you make the definition of evidence for greed wide enough then your argument becomes necessarily true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward · 01-02-2012 12:03AM

Are we really being asked to believe that the current economic and banking crisis in this country was caused by approximately 10% of mortgage owners falling behind on their repayments???

jased10s · 01-02-2012 12:16AM

To a lot of people at the time buying a home was cheaper than renting a non home ( ie bad managment and you had no security ).

And also every month you were being priced out of owning one.

ednwireland · 01-02-2012 11:00AM

enda kenny's part in all this i though this comment section in the irish times summed it up for me he is tarred with the same brush as all the rest of the politicians of the last 15 years, ok he wouldnt have got a vote from anyone if he hadnt have done this (its politics after all). but it does make you wonder about the point of politics

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0201/1224311045082.html

But back to Enda’s part in “a system that spawned greed to a point where it just went out of control completely”.

In every one of his speeches on five budgets (from 2003 to 2007) as leader of Fine Gael, he complained about high tax and governments’ failure to spend even more. In the latter two of those speeches he urged changes to stamp duty that would have inflated the property bubble further.

On the 2003 budget, he criticised the failure to index tax bands and an increase in VAT. He said the budget was “a silent killer” because it put education out of reach for the disadvantaged, and criticised inadequate funding on health. Speaking on the 2004 budget, he denied defiantly he had ever complained the government was spending too much. He rejected an accusation Fine Gael would not pay for benchmarking of public service pay, and said: “I support the decentralisation concept,” criticising only some of the specifics of that plan.

On the 2005 budget, he said Fine Gael “completely understands the importance of a low personal tax regime”. Again he complained that there was not more public expenditure and less taxation. He went on to propose the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers of second-hand homes up to a limit of €400,000. He complained that Willie Walsh, then chief executive of Aer Lingus, was being shafted, and that if he were in the private sector he would be “properly” remunerated.

On the 2006 budget, he said the social welfare increases which were granted were overdue but went on to complain about not enough being spent in a variety of areas. On the 2007 budget he made a big point about the tax “burden” which he said was too high. Again, he wanted more cuts on stamp duty. It was only when signs that the Celtic Tiger was crumbling did he start (in his speech on the 2008 budget) to oppose the very measures he had urged on over the previous five budgets.

Scofflaw · 01-02-2012 02:50PM

ednwireland wrote: »

enda kenny's part in all this i though this comment section in the irish times summed it up for me he is tarred with the same brush as all the rest of the politicians of the last 15 years, ok he wouldnt have got a vote from anyone if he hadnt have done this (its politics after all). but it does make you wonder about the point of politics

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0201/1224311045082.html

The point of politics in a democratic country is to reflect the preferences of the public - it's how politicians get elected. Pointing the finger at Irish politicians is really an exercise in pointing the finger in the mirror.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ART6 · 01-02-2012 05:50PM

My son and his wife rent a small semi in an estate that has fast become "community housing", which means that they are increasingly surrounded by immigrants on welfare (and I make no apologies for that UN-PC comment). Their quality of life was diminishing fast -- refuse spread in the streets, scrap cars on the pavement, noise and "exotic" smells day and night etc.

In 2008 they became concerned that house prices were fast outstripping their income, and they dreamed of having a family somewhere where their future children could play. They were fortunate in that they could (just about) afford a mortgage then, and they felt a need to get on the housing ladder before the opportunity of a 25 year mortgage was denied to them.

They were also astute enough to realise that investments in pension funds etc. might not yield the result promised, particularly given the way governments have a habit of targeting such things, and they didn't want to reach retirement age while still having to find large monthly rent payments from their pensions, whatever they were. They wanted to buy then and pay off before their retirement so that they owned their home.

Their ambition, Mr. Kenny, was not greed. It was self-defence against the economic climate you and your ilk in Irish politics created. Fortunately, I talked them out of it because I was convinced before than that the whole bubble was about to burst. That doesn't set me out as an expert economist. It just needed a little common sense and a view of what had happened elsewhere, like in the UK in the early nineteen-nineties.

Now, with luck, they could buy a better house for their planned family for a fraction of the price they would have paid three years ago, but our banks are not lending since they are insolvent. So now what Mr. Kenny? Do you have any idea other than capitulation to the Merckosy government?

No! You bl***dy well don't!:mad:

PeadarCo · 01-02-2012 06:04PM

ART6 wrote: »

In 2008 they became concerned that house prices were fast outstripping their income, and they dreamed of having a family somewhere where their future children could play. They were fortunate in that they could (just about) afford a mortgage then, and they felt a need to get on the housing ladder before the opportunity of a 25 year mortgage was denied to them.

Was that not how the bubble was created. Everyone felt they had to get on the property ladder. This just kept pushing prices up and up. To the best of memory political parties competed with each other to inflate the bubble to get elected. This combined with access to lots of cheap credit created the problem. There were multipile causes to it, a made house buying frenzy by the general populace is one of them. If people hadn't bought(no one put a gun to their heads) the bubble wouldn't have happenend. But when the building and housing industry is creating loads of jobs and bringing in large amounts of tax who'd complain.

Kenny really should have combined the "You're not to blame" speach with the "You went mad borrowing" one. This would have recognised the multipile causes to blame.

Taoiseach speech in Davros

Comments