AudreyHepburn wrote: » The bankers/developers/politicians are not the only ones responsible for the recession....ordinary innocent joe/joan soap played their parts too.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » The North/South divide should as it is.....I firmly believe any attempt to reunify the country would reignite The Troubles again. The North is at peace now....lets leave it that way.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Religion does have a place in society and we are all entitled to worship as we please...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Quorum wrote: » I like it, but different strokes, eh? If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it!
Paddy Cow wrote: » I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.
Paddy Cow wrote: » If you want to save the economy money, why not have that sort of system implemented for politician's expense accounts? What they spend on the card could be made public at the end of each month (minus the name of the cardholder). I reckon people would soon shift from the mentality that it's everyone on the social who are wasting their hard earned tax payers money and start demanding that politicians lead by example. Of course there's no way in hell it would be allowed to happen.
token101 wrote: » Paddy Cow wrote: » I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it. It is your own fault FFS :pac: The doctor is there to advise, not be your ****ing babysitter! If you knew the consequences before you took the drugs, like anyone taking on debt should know, then it is 100% your fault! Passing it off on the doctor, or the bank, is just a complete abdication of any personal responsibility. Banks, like every other business, exist to make a profit. You know when you take on a debt that you're responsible for it, and if you're too stupid to realise it, that's your fault. Jesus with this sort of horse**** logic the government would treat every single citizen as a toddler. If you walk into the local shop and order 50 Snickers, they will just take your money, they dont try to stop you by reinforcing how they will make you fat and rot your teeth FFS!
nacimroc wrote: » People of 'small stature' (including small women), Shouldn't be allowed in the emergency services! If you can't drag someone out of a burning car, you shouldn't be a 'first responder'
steddyeddy wrote: » Actually doctors can be held liable as should bankers.
token101 wrote: » Held liable for what? What should bank managers be held liable for? I'm not talking about Sean Fitz or Fingleton and the likes here, people like to conveniently drop names like that into the mix to obfuscate the situation. I'm talking about the ordinary bank manager, the one most people go to when they look for a mortgage or loan. You've gone to him or her, because they don't go door to door where I live, and you've asked for X amount, to be repaid over Y number of years. You've made an agreement based on your circumstances. Now your circumstances have changed and you can't pay. I'd be the first to say the bank should negotiate with you and come to an arrangement, can't get blood from a stone and lots of banks do. But to then take up this position of moral outrage and say they are liable criminally or in any other way is complete bull**** and a total cop out.
steddyeddy wrote: » So you dont expect a loan manager to have any degree of expertise?
steddyeddy wrote: » By your logic people who were prescribed thalidomide by their doctor have only themselves to blame.
steddyeddy wrote: » Bankers deal with large amounts of money they should have some basic expertise. During the celtic tiger they either hadnt got that or they didnt use it. I do blame people for taking mad motgages and the banks should forclose but they should take more of a hit on their mistake aswell.
Yamanoto wrote: » I'd wager that's quite a popular opinion Yep, that too
nacimroc wrote: » Anyone walking into a bank thinking the bank is on their side and impartial, is lying or a complete idiot. That was their job. You wouldn't sue the sweetshop owner for pushing sweets on you if you got fat. They never miss-sold. Circumstances change and thats not their fault.
king_of_inismac wrote: » The job of the bank is to lend prudently to people who can afford to repay their loans. Equally it's the job of the borrower to only borrow what they can afford to repay. There's responsibility on both sides.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Hmmm....you'd be surprised. Have you ever looked at the athiesm threads on here?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » And I have heard many people admit they'd prefer a united Ireland.
token101 wrote: » king_of_inismac wrote: » The job of the bank is to lend prudently to people who can afford to repay their loans. Equally it's the job of the borrower to only borrow what they can afford to repay. There's responsibility on both sides. But circumstances changed dramatically for a lot of people. How was the bank to foresee this if the borrower couldn't?
king_of_inismac wrote: » That's precisely my point. Both parties are responsible (who has more of the responsibility is case-specific IMO)
token101 wrote: » They explained the mortgage, loan, they sold to people and handed them the T/Cs in the contract. What else are they supposed to be experts in? Predicting how your life will turn out and if you'll have a job in 5 years?
What are you talking about? The people taking thalidomide didn't know the consequences of their actions unlike people taking out a loan of any sort. There's no comparison FFS, just more of this obfuscating nonsense some people love.
Expertise in what? What has handling cash got to do with anything FFS? People go to them looking for a mortgage, they assess if they can pay it back and give the money based on that. But the onus is on you to pay! You took the money! And if your circumstances change you are still liable for the debt that you signed the contract for and if you weren't aware of that you are a moron.
token101 wrote: » It is your own fault FFS :pac: The doctor is there to advise, not be your ****ing babysitter! If you knew the consequences before you took the drugs, like anyone taking on debt should know, then it is 100% your fault! Passing it off on the doctor, or the bank, is just a complete abdication of any personal responsibility. Banks, like every other business, exist to make a profit. You know when you take on a debt that you're responsible for it, and if you're too stupid to realise it, that's your fault. Jesus with this sort of horse**** logic the government would treat every single citizen as a toddler. If you walk into the local shop and order 50 Snickers, they will just take your money, they dont try to stop you by reinforcing how they will make you fat and rot your teeth FFS!
Paddy Cow wrote: » If you order 50 snickers and rot your teeth, then it only effects you. If your teeth rot, I don't have to pay your dentist to pull them out through a Universal Dentist Charge. It cracks me up when people talk about the "good times". I can't be the only person, but despite the "boom" and "Celtic Tiger", I was never on a great salary. It never bothered me until suddenly I have to fork out for the stupidity of bankers who gave out too much money. I have said in a previous post how I was suprised when a few years ago I went to the bank to get a small loan of €600. At the time I was only earning €300 a week so I had carefully thought about how much I could afford to pay back. I expected to be asked about my outgoings and if I could make the repayments. The bank told me that I was pre-approved to take out a loan of €10,000! What the fcuk were they thinking pre-approving someone on my salary for a loan of ten grand??? It wasn't even a mortage, just a personal loan. They were willing to give me ten grand, no questions asked and then they wonder why we are in the situation we're in? I can see people's points about how the government shouldn't treat adults like toddlers but in fairness, there has to be proper regulations in place. Let's face it, some people are greedy and there's always going to be some chancer who thinks that (s)he has the next big development as long as they get the funding from the banks, and government approval, they're not going to care about the long term implications on the taxpayer. My longwinded point is, it's not the people who have to deal with the fallout who should be regulated, it's the people who create the situation who should be accountable.
token101 wrote: » I'd argue that the borrower has the majority of the responsibility in most cases. No one had a gun held to their head, there are always alternatives. They were seduced by the easy credit the bank was selling, which is their job. I'm not saying I don't feel for lot of people in the situation, but to turn around and castigate the banks as criminally liable and attempt to absolve borrowers entirely like some here have done is a bit ridiculous and irritating.
Paddy Cow wrote: » I have said in a previous post how I was suprised when a few years ago I went to the bank to get a small loan of €600. At the time I was only earning €300 a week so I had carefully thought about how much I could afford to pay back. I expected to be asked about my outgoings and if I could make the repayments. The bank told me that I was pre-approved to take out a loan of €10,000! My longwinded point is, it's not the people who have to deal with the fallout who should be regulated, it's the people who create the situation who should be accountable.
