Where is Brian Cowen now?

efb · 03-03-2013 04:42PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Funny thing is, all roads lead back to ze Germans. They made bags of cash in the good and bad times.

Ze Germans are managed well little wage growth unlike the Irish gravy train.

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 04:44PM

efb wrote: »

Ze Germans are managed well little wage growth unlike the Irish gravy train.

What has that got to do with my post?

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 04:44PM

efb wrote: »

Oh how was I not swept off my feet by the bankers? Ha ha your living with your parents. Yet house prices on Leitrim are the same as suburban London???

Markets reallign and I buy my house at at a realistic rate at 92%.

But let's blame Brian!

the financial system and housing prices were the remit of brian
so yes, lets blame brian , becasue it was his job to keep a eye on the bankers and prevent the housing market in leitrim costing the same as london

also a quick question for the smug ones among us

so you have a family - do you keep renting at a price that is more than your monthly repayment to a bank , or do you buy ?
with a family you look for the stability of owning your own home provides

but yet everyone who bought a house is a faceless speculator

well news for ya , they are not , they were for the most part average people going about life - the houses were priced at what the market the cowan allowed , were all these people supposed to live in tents ?

as i have said many times - boards if FULL of people who knew better , but ALWAYS after the fact

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 04:47PM

efb wrote: »

So the feckless economic policies of Bertie are fine as he wasn't the one left carrying the can????

Bertie is 1000000% more culpable than Brian, imho

why , was brian cowan not his minister for fiance ? i think the clue is in the job title - his job , his watch , he ( among others ) ****ed up

and slimed away a rich man

Amirani · 03-03-2013 04:47PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

the financial system and housing prices were the remit of brian
so yes, lets blame brian , becasue it was his job to keep a eye on the bankers and prevent the housing market in leitrim costing the same as london

No it wasn't, it was the job of the financial regulator.

Mike 1972 · 03-03-2013 04:48PM

Taking a dump ?

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 04:53PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was the job of the financial regulator.

The buck stops at government

efb · 03-03-2013 04:55PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

the financial system and housing prices were the remit of brian
so yes, lets blame brian , becasue it was his job to keep a eye on the bankers and prevent the housing market in leitrim costing the same as london

also a quick question for the smug ones among us

so you have a family - do you keep renting at a price that is more than your monthly repayment to a bank , or do you buy ?
with a family you look for the stability of owning your own home provides

but yet everyone who bought a house is a faceless speculator

well news for ya , they are not , they were for the most part average people going about life - the houses were priced at what the market the cowan allowed , were all these people supposed to live in tents ?

as i have said many times - boards if FULL of people who knew better , but ALWAYS after the fact

Live in tents? They're was never over occupancy they could rent till they got 8% if they couldn't do that- good fiscal sense said don't buy.

I put it to Sean O'Rouke that RTE contributed to the boon with such program's as "living with mam and dad" and he conceded that. I'm not being smug.

Also Financial Regulation was independent from government so that's the FR's fault

Amirani · 03-03-2013 04:58PM

T-K-O wrote: »

The buck stops at government

I guess more convenient to blame Government than the people who elected them. You didn't have people out protesting these decisions when they were being made either. But yeah, let's just blame Cowen.

03-03-2013 04:59PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

that is how you buy a house , with money you dont have , you borrow based on your earnings , who has 300,000 grand sitting around ?

you really dont understand how this works do you - ill take it you are about 15 judging by your ill thought out post and reply

"what if i got sick "??? if that was the case NO ONE would ever buy a house , and they dont give them away for free you know - its all based on risk

did your parents buy their house???

jesus whept

as i said - go and grow up

Back in the dim and distant '80's, it was usual to have a 10% deposit and costs in place before applying for a mortgage, then only a small multiple of your annual earnings was allowed to be borrowed. The idea of anyone borrowing 10+ times their annual income, with no deposit or Stamp Duty saved for, is mind boggling to those of us who saved hard. In many cases, stamp duty and fees were added to the cost of the house and it's no wonder so many are now struggling, apying fees off over 25 odd years. I know that sounds self rightous, but that's the way things were.

efb · 03-03-2013 05:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Back in the dim and distant '80's, it was usual to have a 10% deposit and costs in place before applying for a mortgage, then only a small multiple of your annual earnings was allowed to be borrowed. The idea of anyone borrowing 10+ times their annual income, with no deposit or Stamp Duty saved for, is mind boggling to those of us who saved hard. In many cases, stamp duty and fees were added to the cost of the house and it's no wonder so many are now struggling, apying fees off over 25 odd years. I know that sounds self rightous, but that's the way things were.

And are now again

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 05:01PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

I guess more convenient to blame Government than the people who elected them. You didn't have people out protesting these decisions when they were being made either. But yeah, let's just blame Cowen.

I didn't fall into the property trap nor did I vote FF, so yes I will blame the Government. I also blame those who voted like a idiot for FF year after year..

Why? Because granny got a free turkey back in the day :rolleyes:

Maudi · 03-03-2013 05:02PM

dd972 wrote: »

guzzling Guinness and wiping his posterior with €20 notes,

.....until he dies

sixty quids worth hopefully.

Dejvice · 03-03-2013 05:02PM

ThirdMan wrote: »

This is what I hate about Ireland.

Not forgetting......' ah.....ah.....em em....em.....shur it'll do grand". Hate that too.

As regards the other guy.....did you ever notice that most Irish politicians have fat round faces. I mean really fat round faces, it seems they have no face at all, just a blob with two eyes, nose and a mouth.

xLexie · 03-03-2013 05:16PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

that is how you buy a house , with money you dont have , you borrow based on your earnings , who has 300,000 grand sitting around ?

you really dont understand how this works do you - ill take it you are about 15 judging by your ill thought out post and reply

"what if i got sick "??? if that was the case NO ONE would ever buy a house , and they dont give them away for free you know - its all based on risk

did your parents buy their house???

jesus whept

as i said - go and grow up

Nah, you buy a house within your means, right? You save for a couple of years, you have say 30% yourself and you borrow the other 70%. Anyone going taking out mortgages of 300k + with nothing were reckless eejits and now of course it's everybody else's fault.

Galwayguy35 · 03-03-2013 05:21PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

So the idea of vice-presidents, Tánaistí and deputy Prime Ministers is essentially useless? We should have elections every time there's a change in leadership of a party or a change in the political dynamics of a parliament? What if after the previous election, Richard Bruton had been elected Taoiseach? Should we have another election straight away?

Sean Lemass became Taoiseach in the same way as have countless U.S. Presidents.

I'd argue that it's irrelevant and that it's hypocritical to consider the current system flawed unless you're a supporter of direct democracy. We elect TD's to do a number of things, one of which is to elect Taoisigh, arguably far less important than the legislative responsibilities that we give them.

Well I would imagine most voters would like to feel that they have a say in who the leader of the country is which would be the reason why we usually have a good idea coming up to an election who that person will be.

It doesn't go down well in most cases when there is a changeover mid way through the lifetime of a Government.

We saw this in Britain as well when Gordon Brown was given the job.

thebigbiffo · 03-03-2013 05:41PM

I'm at home - what's up?

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 05:44PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I'm at home - what's up?

What's the story, how's the mrs

thebigbiffo · 03-03-2013 05:46PM

T-K-O wrote: »

What's the story, how's the mrs

not a bother on her. went shopping for a new dress there on your money while i watch the auld game on sky...thanks for that too.

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 05:49PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

not a bother on her. went shopping for a new dress there on your money while i watch the auld game on sky...thanks for that too.

Ah sure it will be grand.

Come here listen, I've a few bob there. Give us a bell I need some advice.

thebigbiffo · 03-03-2013 05:52PM

T-K-O wrote: »

Ah sure it will be grand.

Come here listen, I've a few bob there. Give us a bell I need some advice.

buy a house...the only thing they're not making more of is land

T-K-O · 03-03-2013 05:58PM

thebigbiffo wrote: »

buy a house...the only thing they're not making more of is land

What...

There's a gap in the market, we should set up a business. I'm sure you could arrange a start-up grant

Jimmy Garlic · 03-03-2013 06:00PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

As much as I hate Bertie, it was Biffo in charge when private debts of the banks were shifted on to the backs of the taxpayer.

Bertie sniffed the wind and bailed out. He knew what was coming. As Haughey said about Bertie -

"He's the man, he's the best, the most skilful, the most devious, and the most cunning of them all"

Berties harmless dub that likes a few scoops with the lads image was carefully cultivated.

Cowen also knew what was coming down the pike, but he was greedy for power and he wanted to sit in Berties chair. Both of them couldn't give a toss about the damage they left in their wake.

Galwayguy35 · 03-03-2013 06:21PM

Logical_Bear wrote: »

an excellent reply for getting caught posting sh1te:D

I never said my opinion was correct and everyone else was wrong.

I have no problem if someone thinks I am talking shíte but it's a bit rich coming from you seeing as you had nothing else to post in the thread.

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 06:22PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was the job of the financial regulator.

and the financial regulators boss is ?????? the minister for finance

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 06:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Back in the dim and distant '80's, it was usual to have a 10% deposit and costs in place before applying for a mortgage, then only a small multiple of your annual earnings was allowed to be borrowed. The idea of anyone borrowing 10+ times their annual income, with no deposit or Stamp Duty saved for, is mind boggling to those of us who saved hard. In many cases, stamp duty and fees were added to the cost of the house and it's no wonder so many are now struggling, apying fees off over 25 odd years. I know that sounds self rightous, but that's the way things were.

but you are implying that the majority borrowed 100% , they did not
some did , most did not , me for one saved the deposit

but according to all the financial wizards on this thread , people who bought houses were gob****es who over extended , well sorry for ya but most did not ,
most people in trouble are that way becasue they lost their jobs , not becasue they over extended

if you lose your job it matters not if you borrowed 92 or 100% , you still cant pay it back , hence the big pile of **** we are in

but dont let the facts get in the way of a good old smug fest

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 06:29PM

xLexie wrote: »

Nah, you buy a house within your means, right? You save for a couple of years, you have say 30% yourself and you borrow the other 70%. Anyone going taking out mortgages of 300k + with nothing were reckless eejits and now of course it's everybody else's fault.

you really dont have a clue do you?

even before the housing boom , the majority of people saved 8 to 10% and borrowed the rest

and what is wrong with buying a house worth 300k? , if you could afford it at the time then where is the problem?

would you have us all living in pokey 1 bed appts JUST in case the housing market of the economy crashed???
people had jobs and the prospects looked good
you are being un realistic

efb · 03-03-2013 06:30PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

and the financial regulators boss is ?????? the minister for finance

It's independent

dj jarvis · 03-03-2013 06:35PM

efb wrote: »

It's independent

no , his decisions might be , but his remit is set down by the government of the day

so if he is so independent how come the gov now are always calling him in and telling him to get tough on the bank , or to tell aib not to raise the rates ect ect

independent my arse

he knows who pays his wages - the minister for finance of the day is the boss

the government legislate - the regulator is supposed to enforce these laws , ever heard of light touch regulation?
the regulator did not come up with this , the government did , so when it went tits up , whos to blame ?
the government - or more to the point , minister for finance , who at the time was cowan

Grayson · 03-03-2013 06:36PM

can we all just agree that Biffo & Bertie are both tossers of the highest order? And that if given the chance we'd punch both of them in the balls?

Where is Brian Cowen now?

Comments