Poor poor Tories you couldn't make it up!!

[Bobbsy]

The recession caused by Tory/Coalition mismanagment ? Interesting if inaccurate take on things.

 

Have a look at some facts. The original cause of the recession was the global financial crisis which was caused, not by any government but by your rich friends who invest to nicely in the economy.

 

However, soon after that the Tories (and Lib Dems) took power with their dogmatic adherence to austerity when stimulus is what was needed. That's the cause of the UK's double and triple dip recession. Countries that invested in stimulus and used it wisely are experiencing growth. Countries wedded to austerity (UK, Euro Zone) are in a deep pickle of unemployment and recession.

 

Again, referring to the facts presented, this is a loan shceme isnt it? How is that using up taxpayer money? Could you explain. As an aside, I am quite sure the majority of my tax paid goes to the feckless and less well off, not the well off. I have just commented on a thread about someone that wants to cash in their super. No doubt in X years time, they wil be moaning that they don't have enough benefits to live on.

 

There will inevitably be costs in running this scheme. That's taxpayers' money.

 

Now, please provide some statistics supporting your views about people on benefits. The amount of benefit abuse is vastly lower than the right contend even though, like you, they state it as absolute fact. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?

 

Is this related to the new home loan thing?

 

About as much as your views on benefit abuse. If you want to look at drains on the economy, you'll find a lot more in the banks and tax-avoiding rich than you will in the benefits sector.

 

OMG. Are you suggesting that they were handed a golden economy or something?? You have just lost the last scrap of any credibility you might have had with that line.

:biglaugh:

 

See above. It was far from a golden economy but the GFC was not the fault of any single government--indeed it was to do with all those fine, upstanding rich bankers. You know...the same ones who paid themselves annual bonuses out of bail out money. However, since then, Tory mismanagement and dogmatic addiction to austerity has sent the UK into double and triple dip recession.

[northshorepom]

I would contest the simple statements above that the GFC was all the fault of those nasty bankers - they're just the convenient targets for the 21st century 2 minute hate

 

The rot at its heart was the widespread selling of bad loans in the US. It was the fault primarily of those taking out those loans and those issuing them, who were partly banks and partly quasi-public mortgage corporations. Secondarily it was the fault of the banks who then packaged on those loans and sold them into the wider market to "spread the risk" (lol) and the rating agencies who gave these instruments AAA ratings in almost all cases

 

Most of those who ended up holding the dodgy paper were unlucky more than anything else. And a bit rash in their investment strategies. But not really the architects of the whole mess

 

We never learn of course. Can't have any correction in the housing market, oh no......

[Guest chris955]

There hasnt been a triple dip recession.

[Bobbsy]

The selling of bad loans in the USA was 100% down the bankers and their greed and short-termism. They sold mortgages they knew were bad purely for the bottom line this year...and who cares what happens next year. That's down to the banking industry.

 

It might be one thing if they'd learned their lessons but they haven't. Look at the LIBOR rate scandal.

[Bobbsy]

But that doesnt matter. Yes, some will profit from it - we live in a capitalist society, so nothing wrong with that. The purpose is to stimulate house building.

 

As for torries only looking after their own. I have never heard of such rubbish. The last labour goverment did far more to hurt the average person.

 

Capitalism is using the free market to try and generate a profit. As soon as that profit is a taxpayer handout, the system has gone wrong.

 

Anyway, go back and re-read the article. There are two parts to the legislation. The loans that will potentially allow the purchase of second homes are NOT billed as stimulus for the construction industry; they're to help renters onto the housing ladder.

 

It's the other part, restricted to new builds, which is to stimulate the construction industry.

 

Sigh. It would be nice if those with such strong pro-Tory positions would actually read the article they're so sure about.

[Guest chris955]

But that doesnt matter. Yes, some will profit from it - we live in a capitalist society, so nothing wrong with that. The purpose is to stimulate house building.

 

As for torries only looking after their own. I have never heard of such rubbish. The last labour goverment did far more to hurt the average person.

 

But Labour only have our best interests at heart, they look after the 'battlers' :-)

[northshorepom]

The selling of bad loans in the USA was 100% down the bankers and their greed and short-termism. They sold mortgages they knew were bad purely for the bottom line this year...and who cares what happens next year. That's down to the banking industry.

 

!00%? Rubbish

 

Takes two to tango...the people who bought them were also at fault, as was the industry that sold buying any property as a one-way bet (which it still does). Regulators who saw the packaging of loans into MBSs as a good way of "spreading risk" - which was the orthodox view, including of the Fed - also have a dirty hand, as do the agencies for not assessing the risk of the MBSs which is, after all, their job

[Bobbsy]

!00%? Rubbish

 

Takes two to tango...the people who bought them were also at fault, as was the industry that sold buying any property as a one-way bet (which it still does). Regulators who saw the packaging of loans into MBSs as a good way of "spreading risk" - which was the orthodox view, including of the Fed - also have a dirty hand, as do the agencies for not assessing the risk of the MBSs which is, after all, their job

 

In what way is it rubbish?

 

When I obtained my first mortgage (and, indeed, the ones since then) the first thing I had to do was prove my income and prove that I could pay it back. That's the main step that was missing--the modern bank didn't care about the safety of the loans, preferring instead to package the loans to spread the risk as you say. Spreading the risk is all very well and good but surely that same risk should have been minimised in the first place.

 

Where we agree is that government agencies like the Fed were too close to the bankers and had too much of a light touch in terms of regulation. However, don't get me started on politicians--that's another topic.

[northshorepom]

It is rubbish in that you said bankers were 100% to blame.

 

That's just silly facile scapegoating IMO. They shoulder a lot of the blame but the GFC was a complex beast and to pretend it's only one group who were wholly at fault is just avoiding other lessons that need to be learnt. People like an easy target though, that after all was Orwell's principal message

[Guest chris955]

When I got my first mortgage in Brisbane our broker put me down as single with no dependants, I was actually married with twins on the way. It enabled me to get more than I was 'entitled' to.

[Freesia]

I think your missing the point of the article you may need to read it again.

 

you who can't spell suggesting I can't read :laugh:

[Bobbsy]

It is rubbish in that you said bankers were 100% to blame.

 

That's just silly facile scapegoating IMO. They shoulder a lot of the blame but the GFC was a complex beast and to pretend it's only one group who were wholly at fault is just avoiding other lessons that need to be learnt. People like an easy target though, that after all was Orwell's principal message

 

So who else was to blame?

 

I might agree partially if you say the agencies who regulate the banks--but that was a lack of oversight rather than a direct cause. In any case, the changes to various laws that caused this "light touch" regulation was a result of the banks lobbying politicians?

 

Politicians? Again I might agree they had culpability--but, as noted above, they were heavily lobbied by the bankers.

 

Sorry, but although there were others involved, the entire cause of the GFC was the greed--and need for short term profit--in the banks.

 

Speaking of lessons to be learned, I note that the bankers you defend so staunchly are still paying themselves huge bonuses out of bail out money when the banks themselves were insolvent--and coming up with great ideas like rigging the LIBOR rate to increase profit. I wonder what their next trick for you to defend blindly will be?

[northshorepom]

So who else was to blame?

I've already told you that, go back and read, I'm not repeating myself when you're clearly whipping yourself up into outrage about it

 

Sorry, but although there were others involved, the entire cause of the GFC was the greed--and need for short term profit--in the banks.

A symptom of a system more than anything else. But if you want to carry on believing in an Aunt Sally you can blame for everything, go ahead, no skin off my nose. Why not ask yourself what the commercial environment was where they were doing that? How did it come about? Why were so many customers prepared to be duped?

 

Speaking of lessons to be learned, I note that the bankers you defend so staunchly are still paying themselves huge bonuses out of bail out money when the banks themselves were insolvent--and coming up with great ideas like rigging the LIBOR rate to increase profit. I wonder what their next trick for you to defend blindly will be?

Get over yourself. I haven't "defended them staunchly". I haven't even said they weren't to blame. I have merely said that blaming everything on them, 100%, is plainly incorrect since there's never a complex economic situation where you can say that. And suggested that to believe otherwise is childish and rather blinkered

 

In your rant you're also technically incorrect, of course. Who was bailed out (in the UK)? I think every bank that received money has had the directors sacked and the shareholders have lost a packet. So they HAVE been punished. In the worst cases (Northern Rock, B&B etc), investors have lost everything.

 

That's not enough for you though, clearly. What do you want? A law passed prohibiting banks that haven't taken bailout money from paying any bonuses? Be realistic

[Guest Guest 47403]

you who can't spell suggesting I can't read :laugh:

 

Ah here comes the spelling police absolutely pathetic! :dull:

[Bobbsy]

I'm too old for outrage. I just "call them as I see them".

 

In any case, this started as a discussion as to whether the recession the Conservatives inherited was the fault of the Labour government or, as per my contention, banks and financial institutions. All your talk of "commercial environments" and so on suggest to me you're attacking details rather than the main thrust of my argument.

 

Something that may surprise you: I'm not a staunch Labour supporter. I've probably voted Conservative (back in the UK) more often than Labour, particularly when Blair and Brown were there.

 

However, neither will I let myself blindly follow the Conservative party. I firmly believe that, under Cameron's lead, they've taken the UK up an economic blind alley. Austerity alone will make the situation worse, not better. Beyond that, despite statements like "we're all in this together" his specific austerity programmes are hitting the poor and working classes far harder than the wealthy. Whether I have my right or left hat on, this seems wrong to me.

 

Anyway, I'll leave you to get on with YOUR rant and outrage. I just like a good discussion and don't take any of this personally.

[calNgary]

Come on guys, please lay off the personal comments and discuss the topic so we dont have to close the thread.

 

Thanks

[Guest chris955]

Anyway it seems as though this Is going to benefit people generally, there will be some who will use it to buy a second home but it is intended to stimulate the housing market and with any luck that is what it will do.

[Perthbum]

So what if the rich get richer, why is this seen as a bad thing in the UK, especially by ardent Labour supporters....

 

One minute your banging on about investing in the economy, the next your complaining when rich people actually invest

Perhaps everyone should sit around and wait for people on benefits to invest, instead of draining the economy.

but wouldn't it be nice alongside the rich getting richer that the bloke slogging his guts out day after day did not get poorer year after year.....it's called fairness.....think about it.

[Guest chris955]

Unfortunately it isnt how the world works regardless of which political party is in power.

[Perthbum]

Unfortunately it isnt how the world works regardless of which political party is in power.

So we are entitled to have a moan about the rich getting richer s while the working man gets poorer year after year....one soultion....tax the rich more....tax the working man less.

[StevieF8]

So we are entitled to have a moan about the rich getting richer s while the working man gets poorer year after year....one soultion....tax the rich more....tax the working man less.

 

The rich do pay more tax than the poor...that’s basic economics.

 

Even companies who avoid tax, Starbucks, Amazon and so on, are still employing people who in turn pay tax

[Guest Andy]

So we are entitled to have a moan about the rich getting richer s while the working man gets poorer year after year....one soultion....tax the rich more....tax the working man less.

 

Are the rich not the working man then? One of the great things about living in a country like Britain is that we generally all have the opportunity to do well and make money if we are driven enough, plenty of people will have started from nothing and made millions and on the way paid loads of tax, employed countless people and contributed greatly to the economy while countless people have decided for whatever reason to settle with a "normal job" and income and got on very well, while some others will have done sod all except whinge about how much money others have got and how it should be taken off of them.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Andy

[StevieF8]

while some others will have done sod all except whinge about how much money others have got and how that should be taken off of them.

 

 

These are the people who think that the world owes them a living, while they do nothing but sit there with their hand out waiting for the benefit cheque to arrive.

[Guest chris955]

The UK is full of self made millionaires, Richard Branson, James Dyson, John Bloor and many many more. Those 3 alone would employ literally 1000's of people. As we have seen in the past if you tax the rich disproportionatly they pick up sticks and leave.

 

Are the rich not the working man then? One of the great things about living in a country like Britain is that we generally all have the opportunity to do well and make money if we are driven enough, plenty of people will have started from nothing and made millions and on the way paid loads of tax, employed countless people and contributed greatly to the economy while countless people have decided for whatever reason to settle with a "normal job" and income and got on very well, while some others will have done sod all except whinge about how much money others have got and how that should be taken off of them.

[Perthbum]

The rich do pay more tax than the poor...that’s basic economics.

 

Even companies who avoid tax, Starbucks, Amazon and so on, are still employing people who in turn pay tax

well tax them more and reduce on the less well paid, don't believe this bullshite that people will leave the country if you tax them more.