Accountable;1020916 wrote: In a few short weeks, the gov't has taken steps to take over the banking system, insurance system, and real estate. It will be a generation before we can get them out, if ever. I'd have preferred collapse. It would have been an easier mess to clean up. As it is, I'm afraid our culture of self-determination and personal accountability will be irreparably destroyed and replaced with one of slothful dependence on a Robin Hood gov't.
Sure, the fact that you have had to revert to good old European style state socialism (on a simply massive scale) to bail out the happy clappy Capitalist free market after it destroyed itself is statement enough on the state of where the US free market system had gotten (or allowed to get to, its the same result). It should also make quite clear about who is in charge, and it isn't Wall Street anymore. This is the end of an era, you are right. It also marks the end of a lot of other places in the world automatically believing the propaganda about how wonderful deregulated market capitalism is for freedom and wealth.
In the final analysis it will be realized that it was ultimately the failure of unregulated capitalism, that has necesitated this massive waste of public money to shore up the consequences of unfettered greed and hubris. Nations cannot fight wars and run economies based on debt and paper transactions related to nothing but notions of risk. That is going to be very hard lesson of this. Next comes the geopolitcal realities of "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
Also, these so called "Masters of the Universe" have proven to be false gods, people on Wall Street shouln't be setting the political and economic agenda for everyone else, never again, they should work with the agenda they are given by the people through their elected representatives. Next time, make sure you keep a much better eye on what Wall Street is doing, and don't take a lot of financial gobbledigook from people who don't even know what they are on about themselves as bible.
What's the worst that could happen?
What's the worst that could happen?
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What's the worst that could happen?
I'm confused then. If the socialist system is better then why are all the other countries in the same boat as us right now?? 
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
sunny104;1021143 wrote: I'm confused then. If the socialist system is better then why are all the other countries in the same boat as us right now??
Well, i tend to agree with what our PM is saying .... It's the banks fault.
Money breeds power. Gordon Brown and other European countries leaders are all saying that those at the top of these banks, the sinners, will pay. Gordon Brown has gone as far to say, with legal action against them if necessary.
The more the banks can encourage people to mortgage, re-mortgage, borrow and spend, the higher their dividends are for them.
Every country has gone through a very greedy and irresponsible period. the Governments should have stepped in earlier and stopped it, there is no doubt.
Well, i tend to agree with what our PM is saying .... It's the banks fault.
Money breeds power. Gordon Brown and other European countries leaders are all saying that those at the top of these banks, the sinners, will pay. Gordon Brown has gone as far to say, with legal action against them if necessary.
The more the banks can encourage people to mortgage, re-mortgage, borrow and spend, the higher their dividends are for them.
Every country has gone through a very greedy and irresponsible period. the Governments should have stepped in earlier and stopped it, there is no doubt.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What's the worst that could happen?
oscar;1021161 wrote: Well, i tend to agree with what our PM is saying .... It's the banks fault.
Money breeds power. Gordon Brown and other European countries leaders are all saying that those at the top of these banks, the sinners, will pay. Gordon Brown has gone as far to say, with legal action against them if necessary.
The more the banks can encourage people to mortgage, re-mortgage, borrow and spend, the higher their dividends are for them.
Every country has gone through a very greedy and irresponsible period. the Governments should have stepped in earlier and stopped it, there is no doubt.
the banks are at fault here too but everyone is blaming capitalism. In every other country the banks are at fault too but no one is saying it's socialism or whatever that's to blame. Doesn't make sense.
Money breeds power. Gordon Brown and other European countries leaders are all saying that those at the top of these banks, the sinners, will pay. Gordon Brown has gone as far to say, with legal action against them if necessary.
The more the banks can encourage people to mortgage, re-mortgage, borrow and spend, the higher their dividends are for them.
Every country has gone through a very greedy and irresponsible period. the Governments should have stepped in earlier and stopped it, there is no doubt.
the banks are at fault here too but everyone is blaming capitalism. In every other country the banks are at fault too but no one is saying it's socialism or whatever that's to blame. Doesn't make sense.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
sunny104;1021164 wrote: the banks are at fault here too but everyone is blaming capitalism. In every other country the banks are at fault too but no one is saying it's socialism or whatever that's to blame. Doesn't make sense.
Whenever you have a major crisis in the world, you will have different sides calling it different title's. To me, it's just like saying Labour or Tory, Rep or Dem. Each side will blame the other. What i find interesting about this financial crisis, is that in our country, we have a Labour government. Their opposition is The Tory Party.
Normally the opposition will go all out to discredit the other, but in this example, the opposition has actually come out publically and backed the Prime Ministers plans. That rarely happens. It's abit like Obama backing McCain on Iraq for eg.
It just shows that this problem that's been created by the banks, is in mho, neither a socialist nor capitalist sole blame scenario. Both sides of the opposition agree on what caused it... the banking fraternity.
Capitalism is unfair on lower classes. The money and the power are in the hands of the elite few above, i.e. the bank chiefs, in this case, not in the hands of the people.
What Gordon Brown has done is to take that money and power away from the bank chiefs. They have all lost their jobs and their fat cat wages. Our government has bought out the banks and instead of having private directors on huge salerie's, they are to be replaced with government appointed personnel who will work for the government not their own pockets.
So now, the banks in effect, belong to the taxpayer, i.e the the people. When the crisis is over, although it will take time, and the banks start seeing some profit, that profit will belong to the people, the tax payer and not th banking chiefs.
My learned friend gmc is very good at explaining things better than me.
Whenever you have a major crisis in the world, you will have different sides calling it different title's. To me, it's just like saying Labour or Tory, Rep or Dem. Each side will blame the other. What i find interesting about this financial crisis, is that in our country, we have a Labour government. Their opposition is The Tory Party.
Normally the opposition will go all out to discredit the other, but in this example, the opposition has actually come out publically and backed the Prime Ministers plans. That rarely happens. It's abit like Obama backing McCain on Iraq for eg.
It just shows that this problem that's been created by the banks, is in mho, neither a socialist nor capitalist sole blame scenario. Both sides of the opposition agree on what caused it... the banking fraternity.
Capitalism is unfair on lower classes. The money and the power are in the hands of the elite few above, i.e. the bank chiefs, in this case, not in the hands of the people.
What Gordon Brown has done is to take that money and power away from the bank chiefs. They have all lost their jobs and their fat cat wages. Our government has bought out the banks and instead of having private directors on huge salerie's, they are to be replaced with government appointed personnel who will work for the government not their own pockets.
So now, the banks in effect, belong to the taxpayer, i.e the the people. When the crisis is over, although it will take time, and the banks start seeing some profit, that profit will belong to the people, the tax payer and not th banking chiefs.
My learned friend gmc is very good at explaining things better than me.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What's the worst that could happen?
sunny104;1021143 wrote: I'm confused then. If the socialist system is better then why are all the other countries in the same boat as us right now??
Because those other countries are also Capitalist countries with banks, financiers, capital markets, and deregulated stock markets (you shouldn't believe everything you hear on Fox, America is not the only Capitalist country, in fact I don't even think it was invented in America, fancy that!
Also, its important to understand that Europe is not a communist empire, run by Marshall Tito, where everyone has moustances and drives 2-stroke cars from the 1950s (thats Iran); its actually made up of modern capitalist countries, we just have functioning social welfare systems, and people here don't worship the whole "government bad, business good" ideology; thats the only 2 real differences).
Anyway, those crazy funny Wall Street and City of London guys not only broke the American financial system, they also broke the whole global system. Many banks worldwide have also bought into the "derivative" and "credit default swap" market without the slightest idea of what these things really were. Governments didn't do anything about it until it was too late, and now the system has been brought down.
Because those other countries are also Capitalist countries with banks, financiers, capital markets, and deregulated stock markets (you shouldn't believe everything you hear on Fox, America is not the only Capitalist country, in fact I don't even think it was invented in America, fancy that!
Also, its important to understand that Europe is not a communist empire, run by Marshall Tito, where everyone has moustances and drives 2-stroke cars from the 1950s (thats Iran); its actually made up of modern capitalist countries, we just have functioning social welfare systems, and people here don't worship the whole "government bad, business good" ideology; thats the only 2 real differences).
Anyway, those crazy funny Wall Street and City of London guys not only broke the American financial system, they also broke the whole global system. Many banks worldwide have also bought into the "derivative" and "credit default swap" market without the slightest idea of what these things really were. Governments didn't do anything about it until it was too late, and now the system has been brought down.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1020916 wrote: In a few short weeks, the gov't has taken steps to take over the banking system, insurance system, and real estate. It will be a generation before we can get them out, if ever. I'd have preferred collapse. It would have been an easier mess to clean up. As it is, I'm afraid our culture of self-determination and personal accountability will be irreparably destroyed and replaced with one of slothful dependence on a Robin Hood gov't.
Interestingly, the first of our banks to be bailed out, Northern Rock, has already paid back nearly two thirds of the tax payers money.
Interestingly, the first of our banks to be bailed out, Northern Rock, has already paid back nearly two thirds of the tax payers money.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1021361 wrote:
Anyway, those crazy funny Wall Street and City of London guys not only broke the American financial system, they also broke the whole global system.
Look galbally, i don't know what shananagans go on in the lovely Emerald Isle, but if you are going to blame anybody for this global meltdown, then please refrain from associating my fine upstanding, honest politicians with other countries.
You know very well that Britain is in no way to blame and our government would never ever consider a capitalistic nation. From the beginning of time, The chaps down the City have only had the very best interests of the working class man in their hearts.
I object to your constant slights on my government because as you well know galbally, this mess lies at the fault of every country in the western world except Great Britain.
Far from continue to attack our rock-solid honest humble nation, you should be down on your knees kissing the feet of Gordon Brown for getting everyone out of the fine mess that you helped get us into.
Whatever next galbally? Really!! tut. You'll be accusing them of slipping in Sharia law next.
:p:p:p
Anyway, those crazy funny Wall Street and City of London guys not only broke the American financial system, they also broke the whole global system.
Look galbally, i don't know what shananagans go on in the lovely Emerald Isle, but if you are going to blame anybody for this global meltdown, then please refrain from associating my fine upstanding, honest politicians with other countries.
You know very well that Britain is in no way to blame and our government would never ever consider a capitalistic nation. From the beginning of time, The chaps down the City have only had the very best interests of the working class man in their hearts.
I object to your constant slights on my government because as you well know galbally, this mess lies at the fault of every country in the western world except Great Britain.
Far from continue to attack our rock-solid honest humble nation, you should be down on your knees kissing the feet of Gordon Brown for getting everyone out of the fine mess that you helped get us into.
Whatever next galbally? Really!! tut. You'll be accusing them of slipping in Sharia law next.
:p:p:p
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What's the worst that could happen?
oscar;1024315 wrote: AHA, you say Gordon Shmorden Dr gallstone, is that a tad of french sour grapes i detect there? Just because we got The Great one before you could get him, you dwarfe, gaelic, squiddly diddly, shamrock growing, cow milking, sheep shearing, tiny principality in the English sea between that tiny green place and Great Britain.
Yes, it is the English sea, just as it is the English Channel, just because neandatal man landed there first, it's not yours.
We shan't resort back to decimalization either. It was only introduced in 1812 by Sir Dingly Dang for them Irish immigrants to understand. They can only count in tens as well you know. What the feck do you think they will all do if we suddenly go confusing them in all those Irish themed pubs, with your copper pans and old bikes hanging from the ceiling, if we go back to Stirling?
Yes, we do have money and your just jealous. I admit we have borrowed the odd quid of them chinks, but it is only a cunning ploy by the Great Uncle Gordon to convert it into sterling as quick as possible so we have a loophole to get out of paying it back.
We all know them yanks have gone belly up, but you have to just keep rubbing salt in the wounds to those wonderfull American people don't you? Your just well naffed because they didn't want to base their lovely missiles in your cheesy gas bogs. we've got them, we've ordered a shed load more and they are just going to keep on coming. Just incase that Scottish, jock fiddling, heather growing bunch launch their Polaris at anyone.
Yes, the fuzzy wuzzy's do still live down the road Dr Gallbutt that's because your too irish to know they are called Ghurka's. They got us out of the shyte last time we declared war on Germany and they will get us out of the shyte next time Uncle Gordon threatens to bankrupt them. Anyway, it's their own fault, they started it, they invaded Poland.
As for our gay football sqad, your just jealous because the last time you got through to world qualifying rounds, Jack charlton had a paper round and hair.
Your quite right about those nasty WAGS i agree but if you read a decent newspaper and not the Irish times, you'd know that the other Great One, Fabio capello has banned those nasty wags from European matches. He is only allowing wive's of goal keepers now. (Think about that gally boy) :-3:-3
I must leave, i must make tea for my hairy ass crack builders. Your trip in the country today was a short one i see, did you fuel run out?????? :wah::wah:
:p:p:p:p
Shamrock drinking gaelic leprechaun is it? You tea drinking, queen loving, morris dancing, daily mail reading Teutonic English nob end, go way out of it, we are the Celts! The Greatest people in the world, (its all in the Irish Times you know) sure didn't we build half of your overcrowded polluted island, fight half your wars for your repressed Homosexual generals, and America, yeah we built that as well. Do you know where Wellington came from, he came from Ireland girl, that why he beat that frenchie good looking, unlike that ladyboy Marlborogh. Whenever the natives got uppity who did ye send in to sort it, yep the Irish and Scots to break heads, your welcome. Aside from that sure we only showed you how to read and write and go to mass like proper christians when ye were all a bunch of German heathens, who came over on holidays to the British Isles and then robbed it from the Celts the real "Britons" the cheek of ye.
I will admit that our soccer team is a bit crap now though, but we have Trappatoni, and ye have Capello so maybe we will both get better at the footie again. But sure anyway we have the All Ireland finals, so to blazes with your foriegn games. Anyway I will leave you to your builders, its all water under the bridge now and we are all friendly Europeans, so fair play to Gordon the superman for saving us from a life worse than Zimbawe and well done winning all those olympic golds. Oh and I have plenty of Fuel, the libyans are helping us out.
Yes, it is the English sea, just as it is the English Channel, just because neandatal man landed there first, it's not yours.
We shan't resort back to decimalization either. It was only introduced in 1812 by Sir Dingly Dang for them Irish immigrants to understand. They can only count in tens as well you know. What the feck do you think they will all do if we suddenly go confusing them in all those Irish themed pubs, with your copper pans and old bikes hanging from the ceiling, if we go back to Stirling?
Yes, we do have money and your just jealous. I admit we have borrowed the odd quid of them chinks, but it is only a cunning ploy by the Great Uncle Gordon to convert it into sterling as quick as possible so we have a loophole to get out of paying it back.
We all know them yanks have gone belly up, but you have to just keep rubbing salt in the wounds to those wonderfull American people don't you? Your just well naffed because they didn't want to base their lovely missiles in your cheesy gas bogs. we've got them, we've ordered a shed load more and they are just going to keep on coming. Just incase that Scottish, jock fiddling, heather growing bunch launch their Polaris at anyone.
Yes, the fuzzy wuzzy's do still live down the road Dr Gallbutt that's because your too irish to know they are called Ghurka's. They got us out of the shyte last time we declared war on Germany and they will get us out of the shyte next time Uncle Gordon threatens to bankrupt them. Anyway, it's their own fault, they started it, they invaded Poland.
As for our gay football sqad, your just jealous because the last time you got through to world qualifying rounds, Jack charlton had a paper round and hair.
Your quite right about those nasty WAGS i agree but if you read a decent newspaper and not the Irish times, you'd know that the other Great One, Fabio capello has banned those nasty wags from European matches. He is only allowing wive's of goal keepers now. (Think about that gally boy) :-3:-3
I must leave, i must make tea for my hairy ass crack builders. Your trip in the country today was a short one i see, did you fuel run out?????? :wah::wah:
:p:p:p:p
Shamrock drinking gaelic leprechaun is it? You tea drinking, queen loving, morris dancing, daily mail reading Teutonic English nob end, go way out of it, we are the Celts! The Greatest people in the world, (its all in the Irish Times you know) sure didn't we build half of your overcrowded polluted island, fight half your wars for your repressed Homosexual generals, and America, yeah we built that as well. Do you know where Wellington came from, he came from Ireland girl, that why he beat that frenchie good looking, unlike that ladyboy Marlborogh. Whenever the natives got uppity who did ye send in to sort it, yep the Irish and Scots to break heads, your welcome. Aside from that sure we only showed you how to read and write and go to mass like proper christians when ye were all a bunch of German heathens, who came over on holidays to the British Isles and then robbed it from the Celts the real "Britons" the cheek of ye.
I will admit that our soccer team is a bit crap now though, but we have Trappatoni, and ye have Capello so maybe we will both get better at the footie again. But sure anyway we have the All Ireland finals, so to blazes with your foriegn games. Anyway I will leave you to your builders, its all water under the bridge now and we are all friendly Europeans, so fair play to Gordon the superman for saving us from a life worse than Zimbawe and well done winning all those olympic golds. Oh and I have plenty of Fuel, the libyans are helping us out.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1023601 wrote: Gordon shmorden, you can have him, and don't give me this rubbish about having lots of money, ye have no money, you are borrowing it from the Chinkys and then converting into that alleged currency "sterling" you guys have over there (for now until of course you realize that its about as solid as a sandpaper bridge built by a crew of drunken Finns), my recommendation is that you now reverse decimalization, revert to all imperial measurements, go back to coal and railways, and get some gun boats built, make some new nice red uniforms and hopefully the fuzzy wuzzys will want your spoofin, guardian reading asses back, now that the yanks have gone belly up, oh no, I just realized the Fuzzy Wuzzys all live down the road from you now, and they want you to join their empire, how dashed inconvinient. In Ireland we will of course be reverting to playing fiddles, drinking proper Whiskey (not that scots crap), and taking the **** out of the English and their gay soccer team and associated WAGS all day. :wah::wah::wah:
Excuse me...galbally? We "yanks" have not gone "belly up". Life goes up and life goes down....and right now we are down. But we have been down before...plenty of times. And we get back up and dust ourselves off, and move on. It ain't over till it's over. Don't you call the game before the last play.
Excuse me...galbally? We "yanks" have not gone "belly up". Life goes up and life goes down....and right now we are down. But we have been down before...plenty of times. And we get back up and dust ourselves off, and move on. It ain't over till it's over. Don't you call the game before the last play.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
wildhorses;1024712 wrote: Excuse me...galbally? We "yanks" have not gone "belly up". Life goes up and life goes down....and right now we are down. But we have been down before...plenty of times. And we get back up and dust ourselves off, and move on. It ain't over till it's over. Don't you call the game before the last play.
:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag
Yee ha......... you tell that copper pan, irish eegitt girl.
Be warned gally boy, those yanks and us British may just gang up.
:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag:yh_flag
Yee ha......... you tell that copper pan, irish eegitt girl.
Be warned gally boy, those yanks and us British may just gang up.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1024616 wrote: Shamrock drinking gaelic leprechaun is it? You tea drinking, queen loving, morris dancing, daily mail reading Teutonic English nob end, go way out of it, we are the Celts! The Greatest people in the world, (its all in the Irish Times you know) sure didn't we build half of your overcrowded polluted island, fight half your wars for your repressed Homosexual generals, and America, yeah we built that as well. Do you know where Wellington came from, he came from Ireland girl, that why he beat that frenchie good looking, unlike that ladyboy Marlborogh. Whenever the natives got uppity who did ye send in to sort it, yep the Irish and Scots to break heads, your welcome. Aside from that sure we only showed you how to read and write and go to mass like proper christians when ye were all a bunch of German heathens, who came over on holidays to the British Isles and then robbed it from the Celts the real "Britons" the cheek of ye.
I will admit that our soccer team is a bit crap now though, but we have Trappatoni, and ye have Capello so maybe we will both get better at the footie again. But sure anyway we have the All Ireland finals, so to blazes with your foriegn games. Anyway I will leave you to your builders, its all water under the bridge now and we are all friendly Europeans, so fair play to Gordon the superman for saving us from a life worse than Zimbawe and well done winning all those olympic golds. Oh and I have plenty of Fuel, the libyans are helping us out.
Well Dr gallbladder, this last paragraph sounds like defeatist to me. Your admitting at long last that yes, we did rob the British Isles from you celts. You got a damn good drubbing then and you'll get another good drubbing if you call me a Morriss Dancer.
Every-one knows that Uncle Gordon is bringing a new law in to have them nancy boys relocated to the projects. They give us British a bad name. And who cares about Wellington? he only invented boots man.
Think of napoleon man.
I will call a pact with you now gally boy as long as you don't go upsetting our American friends again.
One final thing, oh little irish one, who the feck is Trappatoni?? Sounds like a make of pasta to me.
And don't worry about Dublin gally boy, i can't fit it in so your safe, yeh like i'd come stalking you.... you eeegggittt. You wish :wah::wah:
I will admit that our soccer team is a bit crap now though, but we have Trappatoni, and ye have Capello so maybe we will both get better at the footie again. But sure anyway we have the All Ireland finals, so to blazes with your foriegn games. Anyway I will leave you to your builders, its all water under the bridge now and we are all friendly Europeans, so fair play to Gordon the superman for saving us from a life worse than Zimbawe and well done winning all those olympic golds. Oh and I have plenty of Fuel, the libyans are helping us out.
Well Dr gallbladder, this last paragraph sounds like defeatist to me. Your admitting at long last that yes, we did rob the British Isles from you celts. You got a damn good drubbing then and you'll get another good drubbing if you call me a Morriss Dancer.
Every-one knows that Uncle Gordon is bringing a new law in to have them nancy boys relocated to the projects. They give us British a bad name. And who cares about Wellington? he only invented boots man.
Think of napoleon man.
I will call a pact with you now gally boy as long as you don't go upsetting our American friends again.
One final thing, oh little irish one, who the feck is Trappatoni?? Sounds like a make of pasta to me.
And don't worry about Dublin gally boy, i can't fit it in so your safe, yeh like i'd come stalking you.... you eeegggittt. You wish :wah::wah:
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What's the worst that could happen?
wildhorses;1024712 wrote: Excuse me...galbally? We "yanks" have not gone "belly up". Life goes up and life goes down....and right now we are down. But we have been down before...plenty of times. And we get back up and dust ourselves off, and move on. It ain't over till it's over. Don't you call the game before the last play.
I know you'll be back you crazy yank, your right you always come back. Now just you make sure and give those Wall Street boys a good kicking from us as well, get yourself a new president, and play nice when you are visiting abroad!
I know you'll be back you crazy yank, your right you always come back. Now just you make sure and give those Wall Street boys a good kicking from us as well, get yourself a new president, and play nice when you are visiting abroad!
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What's the worst that could happen?
oscar;1024849 wrote: Well Dr gallbladder, this last paragraph sounds like defeatist to me. Your admitting at long last that yes, we did rob the British Isles from you celts. You got a damn good drubbing then and you'll get another good drubbing if you call me a Morriss Dancer.
Every-one knows that Uncle Gordon is bringing a new law in to have them nancy boys relocated to the projects. They give us British a bad name. And who cares about Wellington? he only invented boots man.
Think of napoleon man.
I will call a pact with you now gally boy as long as you don't go upsetting our American friends again.
One final thing, oh little irish one, who the feck is Trappatoni?? Sounds like a make of pasta to me.
And don't worry about Dublin gally boy, i can't fit it in so your safe, yeh like i'd come stalking you.... you eeegggittt. You wish :wah::wah:
I got a letter from Gordon this morning. I read it it says"
Dear Proud Celtic People
The fundamentals of the British economy are strong, we are a friendly nation, and I am a great leader. However, doe to some slight financial problems would you mind emigrating to America so we can sell your Island to the Chinese to cover a few loans we got off them.
Yours
G. Brown
In repsonse I have replied
Dear British Prime Minister
Go way, you f-ing clown or I will personally come over there to ponceville and break your face.
PS Sorry about this, but we bet Britain in a drunken poker game with Russia last night, we lost, they will be over to measure up in a week.
Yours
Me
I also posted a rock in a sock and told him to beat himself with it regularly. :-6
Every-one knows that Uncle Gordon is bringing a new law in to have them nancy boys relocated to the projects. They give us British a bad name. And who cares about Wellington? he only invented boots man.
Think of napoleon man.
I will call a pact with you now gally boy as long as you don't go upsetting our American friends again.
One final thing, oh little irish one, who the feck is Trappatoni?? Sounds like a make of pasta to me.
And don't worry about Dublin gally boy, i can't fit it in so your safe, yeh like i'd come stalking you.... you eeegggittt. You wish :wah::wah:
I got a letter from Gordon this morning. I read it it says"
Dear Proud Celtic People
The fundamentals of the British economy are strong, we are a friendly nation, and I am a great leader. However, doe to some slight financial problems would you mind emigrating to America so we can sell your Island to the Chinese to cover a few loans we got off them.
Yours
G. Brown
In repsonse I have replied
Dear British Prime Minister
Go way, you f-ing clown or I will personally come over there to ponceville and break your face.
PS Sorry about this, but we bet Britain in a drunken poker game with Russia last night, we lost, they will be over to measure up in a week.
Yours
Me
I also posted a rock in a sock and told him to beat himself with it regularly. :-6
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
wildhorses
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:08 pm
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1024921 wrote: I know you'll be back you crazy yank, your right you always come back. Now just you make sure and give those Wall Street boys a good kicking from us as well, get yourself a new president, and play nice when you are visiting abroad!
If it were up to me .....those Wall Street punks would go to prison. They certainly would not be getting taxpayer money to play with. A toothbrush, a comb and a cot....that's what they would get from me. Thankfully we do have a new president on the way within weeks. Whoever it ends up being can't possibly be worse than what we have had lately.
If it were up to me .....those Wall Street punks would go to prison. They certainly would not be getting taxpayer money to play with. A toothbrush, a comb and a cot....that's what they would get from me. Thankfully we do have a new president on the way within weeks. Whoever it ends up being can't possibly be worse than what we have had lately.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1024922 wrote: I got a letter from Gordon this morning. I read it it says"
Dear Proud Celtic People
The fundamentals of the British economy are strong, we are a friendly nation, and I am a great leader. However, doe to some slight financial problems would you mind emigrating to America so we can sell your Island to the Chinese to cover a few loans we got off them.
Yours
G. Brown
In repsonse I have replied
Dear British Prime Minister
Go way, you f-ing clown or I will personally come over there to ponceville and break your face.
PS Sorry about this, but we bet Britain in a drunken poker game with Russia last night, we lost, they will be over to measure up in a week.
Yours
Me
I also posted a rock in a sock and told him to beat himself with it regularly. :-6
So gally boy, you thought you'd sneak in when i was sleeping did you?? Well you have to get up very early in the morning to catch me out you little monkey.
I'm sorry funnyfanny but i've just had the PM on the phone from Germany and he won't apologise because he doesn't care about you celts over there, but he has accidently posted you a letter meant for The Scottish National Party Leader, Sir Jockstrap-Haggis. That's why it says Dear proud celtic people and not Dear Tiny people in the far away land with the copper pans and old bicycles.
If those Heather muching, bearded folk didn't know we just made Scotland an island, well that's their fault for not getting up early.
Yes, we do want them all to bugger off to America, leaving us alone with all those lovely polaris missiles, so we can actually nuke China instead of paying any of their money back. It doesn't matter anyway, because the £ is so strong now after the PM had the balls to do what your cissy bloke couldn't, we've already paid China their 50p back.
We don't care if you lost to Russia in a poker game, you send them damn Ruskie's over here gally boy. I seem to remember rather alot of them coming a cropper the last time they tried to hop the channel. Didn't work then and it won't work now.
Besides, we got enough American troops based here to laugh in their faces. As well as having all those lovely nucleur weapons that Uncle Sam gave us for safe keeping, that were keeping by the way. That's one deal us British will be going back on.
I'm calling off my truce drugally, i don't like having one slipped in the rear when i'm not expecting it. It's cheating, you little Irish twerp, turnip muncher.
I'm taking my p.c. back to bed with me now incase you try another crafty one.
Dear Nation of Acute Embarressment,
Now look here chaps, we've put up with your celtic nomads ruining the reputation of this fine nation for far too long now.
The only reason we hung onto you so long was because we rather hoped you'd eventually make that gas out of cheese, wool and goat hair that you've been promising us.
We've now done a deal with those Ruski's for unlimited supply of gas in return for promising not to invade them.
There-fore we'd like to give you the legal statauary 28 days notice to vacate our Island in The English Sea forthwith. Please ensure that you take all belongings with you including those copper pans and brass knobs.
Your co-operation is needed in this matter so as we can move our new tenants, the polish, in as soon as possible,
Yours un-sincerely as ever,
Gordon Brown The Great of Great Britain.
:p:p:p:p:p:p
Dear Proud Celtic People
The fundamentals of the British economy are strong, we are a friendly nation, and I am a great leader. However, doe to some slight financial problems would you mind emigrating to America so we can sell your Island to the Chinese to cover a few loans we got off them.
Yours
G. Brown
In repsonse I have replied
Dear British Prime Minister
Go way, you f-ing clown or I will personally come over there to ponceville and break your face.
PS Sorry about this, but we bet Britain in a drunken poker game with Russia last night, we lost, they will be over to measure up in a week.
Yours
Me
I also posted a rock in a sock and told him to beat himself with it regularly. :-6
So gally boy, you thought you'd sneak in when i was sleeping did you?? Well you have to get up very early in the morning to catch me out you little monkey.
I'm sorry funnyfanny but i've just had the PM on the phone from Germany and he won't apologise because he doesn't care about you celts over there, but he has accidently posted you a letter meant for The Scottish National Party Leader, Sir Jockstrap-Haggis. That's why it says Dear proud celtic people and not Dear Tiny people in the far away land with the copper pans and old bicycles.
If those Heather muching, bearded folk didn't know we just made Scotland an island, well that's their fault for not getting up early.
Yes, we do want them all to bugger off to America, leaving us alone with all those lovely polaris missiles, so we can actually nuke China instead of paying any of their money back. It doesn't matter anyway, because the £ is so strong now after the PM had the balls to do what your cissy bloke couldn't, we've already paid China their 50p back.
We don't care if you lost to Russia in a poker game, you send them damn Ruskie's over here gally boy. I seem to remember rather alot of them coming a cropper the last time they tried to hop the channel. Didn't work then and it won't work now.
Besides, we got enough American troops based here to laugh in their faces. As well as having all those lovely nucleur weapons that Uncle Sam gave us for safe keeping, that were keeping by the way. That's one deal us British will be going back on.
I'm calling off my truce drugally, i don't like having one slipped in the rear when i'm not expecting it. It's cheating, you little Irish twerp, turnip muncher.
I'm taking my p.c. back to bed with me now incase you try another crafty one.
Dear Nation of Acute Embarressment,
Now look here chaps, we've put up with your celtic nomads ruining the reputation of this fine nation for far too long now.
The only reason we hung onto you so long was because we rather hoped you'd eventually make that gas out of cheese, wool and goat hair that you've been promising us.
We've now done a deal with those Ruski's for unlimited supply of gas in return for promising not to invade them.
There-fore we'd like to give you the legal statauary 28 days notice to vacate our Island in The English Sea forthwith. Please ensure that you take all belongings with you including those copper pans and brass knobs.
Your co-operation is needed in this matter so as we can move our new tenants, the polish, in as soon as possible,
Yours un-sincerely as ever,
Gordon Brown The Great of Great Britain.
:p:p:p:p:p:p
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
wildhorses;1024931 wrote: If it were up to me .....those Wall Street punks would go to prison. They certainly would not be getting taxpayer money to play with. A toothbrush, a comb and a cot....that's what they would get from me. Thankfully we do have a new president on the way within weeks. Whoever it ends up being can't possibly be worse than what we have had lately.If it were up to me the politicians who opened the floodgates would be the ones in prison. Instead, most of them will be re-elected for saving the world. Nobody asks why we can't send the Wall Street punks to prison.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1025102 wrote: If it were up to me the politicians who opened the floodgates would be the ones in prison. Instead, most of them will be re-elected for saving the world. Nobody asks why we can't send the Wall Street punks to prison.
Last week here Accountable, Gordon Brown got very nasty indeed with our bank chief's, directors and shareholders. He told the press that the money men would pay. Those were his words, "They will pay for what they have done". He said he will use legal action against them to hold them accountable if he has to.
What a guy? You've got to admit eh?
After what he did to Iceland and what he did wednesday to our fuel pumps, (he told them to slash prices immediately, or face enquirey's) i think he will undoubtably follow it through.
Just to get your slant Accountable, with Gordon Brown's track record, if he was running for President in USA, do you think he'd win?
Last week here Accountable, Gordon Brown got very nasty indeed with our bank chief's, directors and shareholders. He told the press that the money men would pay. Those were his words, "They will pay for what they have done". He said he will use legal action against them to hold them accountable if he has to.
What a guy? You've got to admit eh?
After what he did to Iceland and what he did wednesday to our fuel pumps, (he told them to slash prices immediately, or face enquirey's) i think he will undoubtably follow it through.
Just to get your slant Accountable, with Gordon Brown's track record, if he was running for President in USA, do you think he'd win?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
oscar;1025436 wrote: Last week here Accountable, Gordon Brown got very nasty indeed with our bank chief's, directors and shareholders. He told the press that the money men would pay. Those were his words, "They will pay for what they have done". He said he will use legal action against them to hold them accountable if he has to.
What a guy? You've got to admit eh?
After what he did to Iceland and what he did wednesday to our fuel pumps, (he told them to slash prices immediately, or face enquirey's) i think he will undoubtably follow it through.
Just to get your slant Accountable, with Gordon Brown's track record, if he was running for President in USA, do you think he'd win?
What did he do building up to that point to prevent the crisis? What did he do to promote it? I can't speak for the UK, but our federal gov't did more promoting than preventing, and to punish the CEOs is beyond hypocritical.
What a guy? You've got to admit eh?
After what he did to Iceland and what he did wednesday to our fuel pumps, (he told them to slash prices immediately, or face enquirey's) i think he will undoubtably follow it through.
Just to get your slant Accountable, with Gordon Brown's track record, if he was running for President in USA, do you think he'd win?
What did he do building up to that point to prevent the crisis? What did he do to promote it? I can't speak for the UK, but our federal gov't did more promoting than preventing, and to punish the CEOs is beyond hypocritical.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1025451 wrote: What did he do building up to that point to prevent the crisis? What did he do to promote it? I can't speak for the UK, but our federal gov't did more promoting than preventing, and to punish the CEOs is beyond hypocritical.
He sounds to me as a very pissed off man.
I have said it on other threads but he was in charge of the money as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair. I know America thinks that Blair is some kind of messiah but he has to be the biggest lying, cheating, backstabbing Judas that the UK has ever seen.
We have had years of our press running a Blair/Brown inner government battle.
Brown has been after Blair's job for many years. Blair is not the nice smiling guy he seems to be. Him and his cronie's would never of had the guts to vote Brown out of government, but by the same token, i am in no doubt, that Blair kept him from ousting him.
Brown has never shown anything but rancour for Blair and i truely believe as does our press, that he hung on in there, knowing his day would come. Blair has spent years suppressing Brown as his number two, but in the end, he couldn't wave off the feelings of the cabinet and he had to go. The people of Britain didn't vote Blair out and Gordon in. It was the cabinet who voted Brown to succeed Blair and i do think Brown's supporters in government only wished it had come sooner.
Brown has only been in for about a year. We have a lot of home problems that Brown needs to deal with such as immigration but the economy crisis got in the way of everything.
He has shown more Leadership in one year than Blair the Juda showed in eight.
He sounds to me as a very pissed off man.
I have said it on other threads but he was in charge of the money as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair. I know America thinks that Blair is some kind of messiah but he has to be the biggest lying, cheating, backstabbing Judas that the UK has ever seen.
We have had years of our press running a Blair/Brown inner government battle.
Brown has been after Blair's job for many years. Blair is not the nice smiling guy he seems to be. Him and his cronie's would never of had the guts to vote Brown out of government, but by the same token, i am in no doubt, that Blair kept him from ousting him.
Brown has never shown anything but rancour for Blair and i truely believe as does our press, that he hung on in there, knowing his day would come. Blair has spent years suppressing Brown as his number two, but in the end, he couldn't wave off the feelings of the cabinet and he had to go. The people of Britain didn't vote Blair out and Gordon in. It was the cabinet who voted Brown to succeed Blair and i do think Brown's supporters in government only wished it had come sooner.
Brown has only been in for about a year. We have a lot of home problems that Brown needs to deal with such as immigration but the economy crisis got in the way of everything.
He has shown more Leadership in one year than Blair the Juda showed in eight.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
oscar;1025475 wrote: He sounds to me as a very pissed off man.
I have said it on other threads but he was in charge of the money as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair. I know America thinks that Blair is some kind of messiah but he has to be the biggest lying, cheating, backstabbing Judas that the UK has ever seen.
We have had years of our press running a Blair/Brown inner government battle.
Brown has been after Blair's job for many years. Blair is not the nice smiling guy he seems to be. Him and his cronie's would never of had the guts to vote Brown out of government, but by the same token, i am in no doubt, that Blair kept him from ousting him.
Brown has never shown anything but rancour for Blair and i truely believe as does our press, that he hung on in there, knowing his day would come. Blair has spent years suppressing Brown as his number two, but in the end, he couldn't wave off the feelings of the cabinet and he had to go. The people of Britain didn't vote Blair out and Gordon in. It was the cabinet who voted Brown to succeed Blair and i do think Brown's supporters in government only wished it had come sooner.
Brown has only been in for about a year. We have a lot of home problems that Brown needs to deal with such as immigration but the economy crisis got in the way of everything.
He has shown more Leadership in one year than Blair the Juda showed in eight.I don't give a damn about your gov't soap opera. The PM is one vote among many. Brown was in the legislature, wasn't he? Did he do anything to promote or prevent your economic crisis over all those years?
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
I have said it on other threads but he was in charge of the money as Chancellor of the Exchequer under Blair. I know America thinks that Blair is some kind of messiah but he has to be the biggest lying, cheating, backstabbing Judas that the UK has ever seen.
We have had years of our press running a Blair/Brown inner government battle.
Brown has been after Blair's job for many years. Blair is not the nice smiling guy he seems to be. Him and his cronie's would never of had the guts to vote Brown out of government, but by the same token, i am in no doubt, that Blair kept him from ousting him.
Brown has never shown anything but rancour for Blair and i truely believe as does our press, that he hung on in there, knowing his day would come. Blair has spent years suppressing Brown as his number two, but in the end, he couldn't wave off the feelings of the cabinet and he had to go. The people of Britain didn't vote Blair out and Gordon in. It was the cabinet who voted Brown to succeed Blair and i do think Brown's supporters in government only wished it had come sooner.
Brown has only been in for about a year. We have a lot of home problems that Brown needs to deal with such as immigration but the economy crisis got in the way of everything.
He has shown more Leadership in one year than Blair the Juda showed in eight.I don't give a damn about your gov't soap opera. The PM is one vote among many. Brown was in the legislature, wasn't he? Did he do anything to promote or prevent your economic crisis over all those years?
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1025488 wrote: I don't give a damn about your gov't soap opera. The PM is one vote among many. Brown was in the legislature, wasn't he? Did he do anything to promote or prevent your economic crisis over all those years?
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
Without boring your socks off, i like to believe that he did try. That was the reason for 5 years of in- house rancour between Brown and Blair. It says something when Blairs own cabinet ousted him to put Brown in the chair. Preciscely because Gordon Brown is Gordon Brown and not just another Labour Cronie. I think his record since he took over in the past year shows what proposals he had, but Blair would never back him or pass his proposals.
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
Without boring your socks off, i like to believe that he did try. That was the reason for 5 years of in- house rancour between Brown and Blair. It says something when Blairs own cabinet ousted him to put Brown in the chair. Preciscely because Gordon Brown is Gordon Brown and not just another Labour Cronie. I think his record since he took over in the past year shows what proposals he had, but Blair would never back him or pass his proposals.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1025488 wrote: I don't give a damn about your gov't soap opera. The PM is one vote among many. Brown was in the legislature, wasn't he? Did he do anything to promote or prevent your economic crisis over all those years?
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
You've got that right. Our system is basically simple. Parliament is where all the power lies. Our MP's must shoulder a fair share of the blame. they can vote him out of his position any time they like. When it became clear Blair had lied they all sat on their hands afraid they might lose their chance at a government post by upsetting Blair and co. The chancellor is equally powerful as the PM if he had objected or had the nerve to resign blair would have been severely weakened. We have adopted this trend of professional politicians whose sole purpose is a career in politics and whose livelihood-they think depends on the party apparatchiks and playing the game. They will shortly be reminded they are in parliament at our behest not anyone else's.
posted by acountable
What did he do building up to that point to prevent the crisis? What did he do to promote it? I can't speak for the UK, but our federal gov't did more promoting than preventing, and to punish the CEOs is beyond hypocritical.
That's the thing you see. If you remove all regulation then these guys have actually done nothing illegal. amoral perhaps, stupid perhaps but illegal no. On the other hand politicians are elected to look after the interests of those who elect them not those in big business. Both our countries need to drive the reminder home.
posted by oscar
Without boring your socks off, i like to believe that he did try. That was the reason for 5 years of in- house rancour between Brown and Blair. It says something when Blairs own cabinet ousted him to put Brown in the chair. Preciscely because Gordon Brown is Gordon Brown and not just another Labour Cronie. I think his record since he took over in the past year shows what proposals he had, but Blair would never back him or pass his proposals.
Bollocks, If he didn't agree he should have had the integrity to resign. His constituency is fife. i suspect the electorate are going to take the tawse to him and his party and give him a real good leathering at the next election.
I would hope he did one or the other, because to be in a position of consequence for years and do nothing is even worse, imo.
You've got that right. Our system is basically simple. Parliament is where all the power lies. Our MP's must shoulder a fair share of the blame. they can vote him out of his position any time they like. When it became clear Blair had lied they all sat on their hands afraid they might lose their chance at a government post by upsetting Blair and co. The chancellor is equally powerful as the PM if he had objected or had the nerve to resign blair would have been severely weakened. We have adopted this trend of professional politicians whose sole purpose is a career in politics and whose livelihood-they think depends on the party apparatchiks and playing the game. They will shortly be reminded they are in parliament at our behest not anyone else's.
posted by acountable
What did he do building up to that point to prevent the crisis? What did he do to promote it? I can't speak for the UK, but our federal gov't did more promoting than preventing, and to punish the CEOs is beyond hypocritical.
That's the thing you see. If you remove all regulation then these guys have actually done nothing illegal. amoral perhaps, stupid perhaps but illegal no. On the other hand politicians are elected to look after the interests of those who elect them not those in big business. Both our countries need to drive the reminder home.
posted by oscar
Without boring your socks off, i like to believe that he did try. That was the reason for 5 years of in- house rancour between Brown and Blair. It says something when Blairs own cabinet ousted him to put Brown in the chair. Preciscely because Gordon Brown is Gordon Brown and not just another Labour Cronie. I think his record since he took over in the past year shows what proposals he had, but Blair would never back him or pass his proposals.
Bollocks, If he didn't agree he should have had the integrity to resign. His constituency is fife. i suspect the electorate are going to take the tawse to him and his party and give him a real good leathering at the next election.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
gmc;1027794 wrote: That's the thing you see. If you remove all regulation then these guys have actually done nothing illegal. amoral perhaps, stupid perhaps but illegal no. On the other hand politicians are elected to look after the interests of those who elect them not those in big business. Both our countries need to drive the reminder home.
AMEN! I've got my vote list ready. Not an incumbent on it, and no Republicans or Democrats if someone else is running.
AMEN! I've got my vote list ready. Not an incumbent on it, and no Republicans or Democrats if someone else is running.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
From a column by John Stossel:
I suspect that the bailout will do more harm than good, like "aiding" an alcoholic by giving him booze. It perpetuates the moral hazard produced by government guarantees that created the problems in the first place. It acts as an enabler by giving more money to opportunistic lenders who assumed they'd be bailed out.
And, of course, the politicians made a bad bailout bill worse by adding in tax breaks for stock-car racers, movie producers, "alternative" energy, etc. Then they insisted that all health insurance must cover mental illness, a requirement that will launch an orgy of fraud and make health insurance unaffordable for millions. The conceit of the anointed knows no bounds.
After the bailout passed, the stock market turned lower. Was it because investors then thought harder about how the politicians will misspend our $700 billion? All government can do is move money from one part of the economy to another. What makes anyone assume the government knows best where the money should be?
Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, got it right when he wrote, "There will be short-term pain if we don't bail out these firms, but that is the hangover price we pay for 15 years or more of binge lending. The proposed bailout cannot prevent the pain of the hangover; it can only conceal it by shifting and dispersing it among the taxpayers and an economy weakened by the borrowing, taxing and/or inflation needed to pay for that $700 billion. Better we should take our short-term pain straight up and clean out the mistakes of our binge and then get back to the business of free markets without creating an unchecked executive branch monstrosity trying to 'save' those who profited most from the binge and harming innocent taxpayers in the process."
Sure, without the bailout, there might have been a severe recession. Bubbles must pop. But it's important that we let bubbles pop. Markets would then find a floor and recover.
Now the politicians are blowing some new air into the bubble, but we may have a recession, anyway. And with more intervention, regulation and ambiguity about what the real market prices for those government-supported securities are, investors won't know where the real bottom is.
So, any recession will last longer. And the moral hazard the bailout perpetuates will lead to new bubbles & and then demands for another bailout.
Free enterprise sounds nice. We should try it sometime.
I suspect that the bailout will do more harm than good, like "aiding" an alcoholic by giving him booze. It perpetuates the moral hazard produced by government guarantees that created the problems in the first place. It acts as an enabler by giving more money to opportunistic lenders who assumed they'd be bailed out.
And, of course, the politicians made a bad bailout bill worse by adding in tax breaks for stock-car racers, movie producers, "alternative" energy, etc. Then they insisted that all health insurance must cover mental illness, a requirement that will launch an orgy of fraud and make health insurance unaffordable for millions. The conceit of the anointed knows no bounds.
After the bailout passed, the stock market turned lower. Was it because investors then thought harder about how the politicians will misspend our $700 billion? All government can do is move money from one part of the economy to another. What makes anyone assume the government knows best where the money should be?
Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, got it right when he wrote, "There will be short-term pain if we don't bail out these firms, but that is the hangover price we pay for 15 years or more of binge lending. The proposed bailout cannot prevent the pain of the hangover; it can only conceal it by shifting and dispersing it among the taxpayers and an economy weakened by the borrowing, taxing and/or inflation needed to pay for that $700 billion. Better we should take our short-term pain straight up and clean out the mistakes of our binge and then get back to the business of free markets without creating an unchecked executive branch monstrosity trying to 'save' those who profited most from the binge and harming innocent taxpayers in the process."
Sure, without the bailout, there might have been a severe recession. Bubbles must pop. But it's important that we let bubbles pop. Markets would then find a floor and recover.
Now the politicians are blowing some new air into the bubble, but we may have a recession, anyway. And with more intervention, regulation and ambiguity about what the real market prices for those government-supported securities are, investors won't know where the real bottom is.
So, any recession will last longer. And the moral hazard the bailout perpetuates will lead to new bubbles & and then demands for another bailout.
Free enterprise sounds nice. We should try it sometime.
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1027835 wrote: From a column by John Stossel:
I suspect that the bailout will do more harm than good, like "aiding" an alcoholic by giving him booze. It perpetuates the moral hazard produced by government guarantees that created the problems in the first place. It acts as an enabler by giving more money to opportunistic lenders who assumed they'd be bailed out.
And, of course, the politicians made a bad bailout bill worse by adding in tax breaks for stock-car racers, movie producers, "alternative" energy, etc. Then they insisted that all health insurance must cover mental illness, a requirement that will launch an orgy of fraud and make health insurance unaffordable for millions. The conceit of the anointed knows no bounds.
After the bailout passed, the stock market turned lower. Was it because investors then thought harder about how the politicians will misspend our $700 billion? All government can do is move money from one part of the economy to another. What makes anyone assume the government knows best where the money should be?
Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, got it right when he wrote, "There will be short-term pain if we don't bail out these firms, but that is the hangover price we pay for 15 years or more of binge lending. The proposed bailout cannot prevent the pain of the hangover; it can only conceal it by shifting and dispersing it among the taxpayers and an economy weakened by the borrowing, taxing and/or inflation needed to pay for that $700 billion. Better we should take our short-term pain straight up and clean out the mistakes of our binge and then get back to the business of free markets without creating an unchecked executive branch monstrosity trying to 'save' those who profited most from the binge and harming innocent taxpayers in the process."
Sure, without the bailout, there might have been a severe recession. Bubbles must pop. But it's important that we let bubbles pop. Markets would then find a floor and recover.
Now the politicians are blowing some new air into the bubble, but we may have a recession, anyway. And with more intervention, regulation and ambiguity about what the real market prices for those government-supported securities are, investors won't know where the real bottom is.
So, any recession will last longer. And the moral hazard the bailout perpetuates will lead to new bubbles & and then demands for another bailout.
Free enterprise sounds nice. We should try it sometime.
from the steve horowitz article
Those of us who support free markets are not your enemies right now. The real problem here is the marriage of corporate and state power. That is the corporatism we both oppose. I ask of you only that you consider whether such corporatism isn't the real cause of this mess and that therefore you reconsider whether free markets are the cause and whether increased regulation is the solution.
Your problem is not socialism or left wing politics of any kind it's right wing politics.
Consider instead that the problems of this mess were caused by the very kinds of government regulation that you now propose
It started with the lifting of any controls and allowing the market makers free rein to do what they wanted and with interference to prop up the markets. Yes in that regard you can argue with some justification that govt intervention took the brakes off and encouraged the creation of inventive financial instruments that had no real substance and that anyone with half a brain could see would lead t problems but so long as the money flowed no body listened.
Yes you can argue a good case that this has happened because free market economics were interfered with but what is happening and has happened is not socialist intervention or anything remotely like it. If anything it's right wing fascism/corporatism/nazism. You're hung up over the wrong ism.
I suspect that the bailout will do more harm than good, like "aiding" an alcoholic by giving him booze. It perpetuates the moral hazard produced by government guarantees that created the problems in the first place. It acts as an enabler by giving more money to opportunistic lenders who assumed they'd be bailed out.
And, of course, the politicians made a bad bailout bill worse by adding in tax breaks for stock-car racers, movie producers, "alternative" energy, etc. Then they insisted that all health insurance must cover mental illness, a requirement that will launch an orgy of fraud and make health insurance unaffordable for millions. The conceit of the anointed knows no bounds.
After the bailout passed, the stock market turned lower. Was it because investors then thought harder about how the politicians will misspend our $700 billion? All government can do is move money from one part of the economy to another. What makes anyone assume the government knows best where the money should be?
Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, got it right when he wrote, "There will be short-term pain if we don't bail out these firms, but that is the hangover price we pay for 15 years or more of binge lending. The proposed bailout cannot prevent the pain of the hangover; it can only conceal it by shifting and dispersing it among the taxpayers and an economy weakened by the borrowing, taxing and/or inflation needed to pay for that $700 billion. Better we should take our short-term pain straight up and clean out the mistakes of our binge and then get back to the business of free markets without creating an unchecked executive branch monstrosity trying to 'save' those who profited most from the binge and harming innocent taxpayers in the process."
Sure, without the bailout, there might have been a severe recession. Bubbles must pop. But it's important that we let bubbles pop. Markets would then find a floor and recover.
Now the politicians are blowing some new air into the bubble, but we may have a recession, anyway. And with more intervention, regulation and ambiguity about what the real market prices for those government-supported securities are, investors won't know where the real bottom is.
So, any recession will last longer. And the moral hazard the bailout perpetuates will lead to new bubbles & and then demands for another bailout.
Free enterprise sounds nice. We should try it sometime.
from the steve horowitz article
Those of us who support free markets are not your enemies right now. The real problem here is the marriage of corporate and state power. That is the corporatism we both oppose. I ask of you only that you consider whether such corporatism isn't the real cause of this mess and that therefore you reconsider whether free markets are the cause and whether increased regulation is the solution.
Your problem is not socialism or left wing politics of any kind it's right wing politics.
Consider instead that the problems of this mess were caused by the very kinds of government regulation that you now propose
It started with the lifting of any controls and allowing the market makers free rein to do what they wanted and with interference to prop up the markets. Yes in that regard you can argue with some justification that govt intervention took the brakes off and encouraged the creation of inventive financial instruments that had no real substance and that anyone with half a brain could see would lead t problems but so long as the money flowed no body listened.
Yes you can argue a good case that this has happened because free market economics were interfered with but what is happening and has happened is not socialist intervention or anything remotely like it. If anything it's right wing fascism/corporatism/nazism. You're hung up over the wrong ism.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
gmc;1028194 wrote: from the steve horowitz article
Your problem is not socialism or left wing politics of any kind it's right wing politics.
It started with the lifting of any controls and allowing the market makers free rein to do what they wanted and with interference to prop up the markets. Yes in that regard you can argue with some justification that govt intervention took the brakes off and encouraged the creation of inventive financial instruments that had no real substance and that anyone with half a brain could see would lead t problems but so long as the money flowed no body listened.
Yes you can argue a good case that this has happened because free market economics were interfered with but what is happening and has happened is not socialist intervention or anything remotely like it. If anything it's right wing fascism/corporatism/nazism. You're hung up over the wrong ism.
I see your point and it makes sense, and fits better than socialism. I still am concerned that a Barama administration might capitalize on the public's fear and centralize all they can grab, just as Bush did. Call it what you like.
Baramatrics?
Your problem is not socialism or left wing politics of any kind it's right wing politics.
It started with the lifting of any controls and allowing the market makers free rein to do what they wanted and with interference to prop up the markets. Yes in that regard you can argue with some justification that govt intervention took the brakes off and encouraged the creation of inventive financial instruments that had no real substance and that anyone with half a brain could see would lead t problems but so long as the money flowed no body listened.
Yes you can argue a good case that this has happened because free market economics were interfered with but what is happening and has happened is not socialist intervention or anything remotely like it. If anything it's right wing fascism/corporatism/nazism. You're hung up over the wrong ism.
I see your point and it makes sense, and fits better than socialism. I still am concerned that a Barama administration might capitalize on the public's fear and centralize all they can grab, just as Bush did. Call it what you like.
Baramatrics?
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1028746 wrote: I see your point and it makes sense, and fits better than socialism. I still am concerned that a Barama administration might capitalize on the public's fear and centralize all they can grab, just as Bush did. Call it what you like.
Baramatrics?
Most people are fairly easy going and don't take an interest in politics unless it affects them directly or they just feel it doesn't matter they can't affect what happens. As a result influential groups can get more say than they should. It sometimes takes seismic events to get people out to vote. Hopefully the last eight years has got people ready to take an interest.
I still am concerned that a Barama administration might capitalize on the public's fear and centralize all they can grab
That's going to be difficult though isn't it? Seems to me you worry about Obama doing something that has already happened. Bush had the excuse of terrorism to accrue more power to govt agencies with the tacit support of the legislature frightened to appear as if they supported terrorism if they objected. maybe the next set of congressman etc will be a bit more assertive in attitude. (I was going to say bolshier but that's a term that might not cross the cultural divide too well).
Baramatrics?
Most people are fairly easy going and don't take an interest in politics unless it affects them directly or they just feel it doesn't matter they can't affect what happens. As a result influential groups can get more say than they should. It sometimes takes seismic events to get people out to vote. Hopefully the last eight years has got people ready to take an interest.
I still am concerned that a Barama administration might capitalize on the public's fear and centralize all they can grab
That's going to be difficult though isn't it? Seems to me you worry about Obama doing something that has already happened. Bush had the excuse of terrorism to accrue more power to govt agencies with the tacit support of the legislature frightened to appear as if they supported terrorism if they objected. maybe the next set of congressman etc will be a bit more assertive in attitude. (I was going to say bolshier but that's a term that might not cross the cultural divide too well).
What's the worst that could happen?
I have looked a bit at what Obama intends to do should he win (and depsite the lead and all that, its still a big if, he may well lose) he intends to realign American policy away from international confrontation and towards a more multilateral style of American leadership of the West (in other words he is actually going to pay attention to what his NATO allies say, and not just come demanding troops as he needs them), he also seems to realize that the actual original problem with Al Queda was based in Pakistan and Afganistan, and had nothing to do with Iraq, so he wants to get out of Iraq as quickly as is sensible, and concentrate resources now on fighting the Taleban, thats welcome.
In terms of geopolitics He seems to be keen to wean the US of its complete economic foreign oil dependence and wants a new industrial revolution based on sustainable energy and its associated technologies, and in the meantime seems to realize that nuclear power will have to be expanded big time, as well as looking for new oil reserves. Again, my own view would be that this is the only long term solution to the current geopolitical instability. And we in Europe need a similarly ambitious policy if we are not to become the plaything of the Russians and the Arabs.
In terms of the domestic economic policy he certainly seems to want to shift the focus of taxation policy away from giving huge breaks to corporations, the super-rich, and the executive classes; and shift the system to be of benefit more toward middle income earners, as well as the poor, and he also seems to be serious about reforming healthcare. As a European I would say those things are eminently sensible, but the devil is in the detail. Of course in the states, which is so indoctrinated with the mantra of big business, it will be spun as "socialism" but to me it simply seems like a less rabid version of American capitalism, and more long-term policy of stable geopolitics. Maybe I am mad, I dunno.
In terms of geopolitics He seems to be keen to wean the US of its complete economic foreign oil dependence and wants a new industrial revolution based on sustainable energy and its associated technologies, and in the meantime seems to realize that nuclear power will have to be expanded big time, as well as looking for new oil reserves. Again, my own view would be that this is the only long term solution to the current geopolitical instability. And we in Europe need a similarly ambitious policy if we are not to become the plaything of the Russians and the Arabs.
In terms of the domestic economic policy he certainly seems to want to shift the focus of taxation policy away from giving huge breaks to corporations, the super-rich, and the executive classes; and shift the system to be of benefit more toward middle income earners, as well as the poor, and he also seems to be serious about reforming healthcare. As a European I would say those things are eminently sensible, but the devil is in the detail. Of course in the states, which is so indoctrinated with the mantra of big business, it will be spun as "socialism" but to me it simply seems like a less rabid version of American capitalism, and more long-term policy of stable geopolitics. Maybe I am mad, I dunno.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
gmc;1028878 wrote: That's going to be difficult though isn't it? Seems to me you worry about Obama doing something that has already happened. Bush had the excuse of terrorism to accrue more power to govt agencies with the tacit support of the legislature frightened to appear as if they supported terrorism if they objected. maybe the next set of congressman etc will be a bit more assertive in attitude. (I was going to say bolshier but that's a term that might not cross the cultural divide too well).
Obama will take the huge power grab that Bush made in the area of privacy invasion et al and keep it, as is traditional with any expanded power here. I think he will also take the recent acquisitions and, using the economic crisis as an excuse, centralize as much as he possibly can under federal government agencies. To some extent I expect to see nationalized insurance of all types, nationalized home mortgages & other lending, and a vastly expanded nationalized bank.
Obama will take the huge power grab that Bush made in the area of privacy invasion et al and keep it, as is traditional with any expanded power here. I think he will also take the recent acquisitions and, using the economic crisis as an excuse, centralize as much as he possibly can under federal government agencies. To some extent I expect to see nationalized insurance of all types, nationalized home mortgages & other lending, and a vastly expanded nationalized bank.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1028916 wrote: I have looked a bit at what Obama intends to do should he win (and depsite the lead and all that, its still a big if, he may well lose) he intends to realign American policy away from international confrontation and towards a more multilateral style of American leadership of the West (in other words he is actually going to pay attention to what his NATO allies say, and not just come demanding troops as he needs them), he also seems to realize that the actual original problem with Al Queda was based in Pakistan and Afganistan, and had nothing to do with Iraq, so he wants to get out of Iraq as quickly as is sensible, and concentrate resources now on fighting the Taleban, thats welcome. I predict a massive reduction in the military. We may well pull out of Afghanistan as well. Obama's got to find the funds somewhere to pay for his social programs and that's the easy mark.
eta: the additional unemployment that will create can help justify his new programs as well. Win/win!
eta: the additional unemployment that will create can help justify his new programs as well. Win/win!
What's the worst that could happen?
Accountable;1028945 wrote: I predict a massive reduction in the military. We may well pull out of Afghanistan as well. Obama's got to find the funds somewhere to pay for his social programs and that's the easy mark.
eta: the additional unemployment that will create can help justify his new programs as well. Win/win!
I don't think he is going to pull out of Afganistan (not in the first term anyway, if he manages to win two, long shot). If he does, thats a long term strategic disaster. Anyway, if you owe 10 trillion dollars and are running a deficit near a trillion a year, you better do something to reduce the size of the borrowing, and yes, it looks like you willl have to cut military spending massively, thats not his fault, he didn't run up these massive deficits, thats Bush trying to fight two wars at the same time, cut taxes for the rich and for companies, and expand the government all at the same time.
Its actually hilarious that the Republicans are trying to paint the democrats as the big irresponsible "tax and spend" party. The Republicans have been "borrowing and spending" on an epic scale, and I am sure you realize thats the same as taxing and spending, it just means that the tax rises have been deferred for a while, as of course borrowing is just deferred taxation, and you have 10 trillion to make good.
To be honest I think on that level both candidates are being dishonest, its imperative that the US Government trys to get its spending and debt in order, and that should mean cutting current spending, and raising taxes people might now like it, but the alternative is to keep on borrowing and eventually the country will go bankrupt. Money should only be spent on capital projects to boost the economy, on essentials like the police, running the state, and the military, on stiving off the worst of the now inevitable poverty coming down the line, and not on unwinnable military adventures, proping up housing bubbles, or tax-breaks for already mega-rich corporates.
eta: the additional unemployment that will create can help justify his new programs as well. Win/win!
I don't think he is going to pull out of Afganistan (not in the first term anyway, if he manages to win two, long shot). If he does, thats a long term strategic disaster. Anyway, if you owe 10 trillion dollars and are running a deficit near a trillion a year, you better do something to reduce the size of the borrowing, and yes, it looks like you willl have to cut military spending massively, thats not his fault, he didn't run up these massive deficits, thats Bush trying to fight two wars at the same time, cut taxes for the rich and for companies, and expand the government all at the same time.
Its actually hilarious that the Republicans are trying to paint the democrats as the big irresponsible "tax and spend" party. The Republicans have been "borrowing and spending" on an epic scale, and I am sure you realize thats the same as taxing and spending, it just means that the tax rises have been deferred for a while, as of course borrowing is just deferred taxation, and you have 10 trillion to make good.
To be honest I think on that level both candidates are being dishonest, its imperative that the US Government trys to get its spending and debt in order, and that should mean cutting current spending, and raising taxes people might now like it, but the alternative is to keep on borrowing and eventually the country will go bankrupt. Money should only be spent on capital projects to boost the economy, on essentials like the police, running the state, and the military, on stiving off the worst of the now inevitable poverty coming down the line, and not on unwinnable military adventures, proping up housing bubbles, or tax-breaks for already mega-rich corporates.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1029027 wrote: I don't think he is going to pull out of Afganistan (not in the first term anyway, if he manages to win two, long shot). If he does, thats a long term strategic disaster. Anyway, if you owe 10 trillion dollars and are running a deficit near a trillion a year, you better do something to reduce the size of the borrowing, and yes, it looks like you willl have to cut military spending massively, thats not his fault, he didn't run up these massive deficits, thats Bush trying to fight two wars at the same time, cut taxes for the rich and for companies, and expand the government all at the same time. I would be surprised to find out that Obama has true vision beyond election/reelection/legacy. I believe he would ruin American culture and traditions in the long term to be seen in a positive light short-term. In that way he's no different from any recent president (post-GHW Bush).
Galbally wrote: Its actually hilarious that the Republicans are trying to paint the democrats as the big irresponsible "tax and spend" party. The Republicans have been "borrowing and spending" on an epic scale, and I am sure you realize thats the same as taxing and spending, it just means that the tax rises have been deferred for a while, as of course borrowing is just deferred taxation, and you have 10 trillion to make good. I haven't heard 'tax & spend' in years. The repubs know they're on thin ice in summer on that issue.
Galbally wrote: To be honest I think on that level both candidates are being dishonest, its imperative that the US Government trys to get its spending and debt in order, and that should mean cutting current spending, and raising taxes people might now like it, but the alternative is to keep on borrowing and eventually the country will go bankrupt. Money should only be spent on capital projects to boost the economy, on essentials like the police, running the state, and the military, on stiving off the worst of the now inevitable poverty coming down the line, and not on unwinnable military adventures, proping up housing bubbles, or tax-breaks for already mega-rich corporates.I don't know how long the concept's been around, but in Washington the term "spending cuts" means a reduction in the rate of increase of spending. Congress came up with this nifty idea to put automatic budget increases in all their spending packages, so that the suck up more and more tax revenue automatically. They say it's not an increase since it is already planned. So when they want to look magnanimous, they reduce next year's increase in a pragram or two and crow about how they've reduced spending. :yh_frustr
You won't see true spending cuts in Washington any time soon.
Galbally wrote: Its actually hilarious that the Republicans are trying to paint the democrats as the big irresponsible "tax and spend" party. The Republicans have been "borrowing and spending" on an epic scale, and I am sure you realize thats the same as taxing and spending, it just means that the tax rises have been deferred for a while, as of course borrowing is just deferred taxation, and you have 10 trillion to make good. I haven't heard 'tax & spend' in years. The repubs know they're on thin ice in summer on that issue.
Galbally wrote: To be honest I think on that level both candidates are being dishonest, its imperative that the US Government trys to get its spending and debt in order, and that should mean cutting current spending, and raising taxes people might now like it, but the alternative is to keep on borrowing and eventually the country will go bankrupt. Money should only be spent on capital projects to boost the economy, on essentials like the police, running the state, and the military, on stiving off the worst of the now inevitable poverty coming down the line, and not on unwinnable military adventures, proping up housing bubbles, or tax-breaks for already mega-rich corporates.I don't know how long the concept's been around, but in Washington the term "spending cuts" means a reduction in the rate of increase of spending. Congress came up with this nifty idea to put automatic budget increases in all their spending packages, so that the suck up more and more tax revenue automatically. They say it's not an increase since it is already planned. So when they want to look magnanimous, they reduce next year's increase in a pragram or two and crow about how they've reduced spending. :yh_frustr
You won't see true spending cuts in Washington any time soon.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What's the worst that could happen?
Galbally;1028916 wrote:
In terms of the domestic economic policy he certainly seems to want to shift the focus of taxation policy away from giving huge breaks to corporations, the super-rich, and the executive classes; and shift the system to be of benefit more toward middle income earners, as well as the poor, and he also seems to be serious about reforming healthcare. As a European I would say those things are eminently sensible, but the devil is in the detail. Of course in the states, which is so indoctrinated with the mantra of big business, it will be spun as "socialism" but to me it simply seems like a less rabid version of American capitalism, and more long-term policy of stable geopolitics. Maybe I am mad, I dunno.
Where does all this money come from galbally?
We have Gordon Brown saying now that he is investing in training and more jobs, which is great but half of these newly un-employed are the very money men who caused this greed, power and misery to the middle class in the first place. Shop workers will be out of a job this Christmas because falling British prices in food and fuel mean the owners of the store's are having a hard time.
Well tough is my view.
As per bloody usual, they have caused their own downfall and then not only blame the government but immediately turn to them for a solution.
Well get in the back of the dole queue Buddy and be humble while your about it.
For Uncle Gordon to invest in the newly un-employed will mean higher taxes for those who have not robbed this country blind.
Why the feck should we bail them out??
You can bet your life these money men won't be taking any job to put food on the table for their familie's. You won't see them sweeping floors in McDonalds will you.
They are also quick enough to blame the Governments Immigration policie's when the truth of it is these people won't get up a ladder or sweep a floor for a living anyway.
I hope they rot in hell.:-5:-5
In terms of the domestic economic policy he certainly seems to want to shift the focus of taxation policy away from giving huge breaks to corporations, the super-rich, and the executive classes; and shift the system to be of benefit more toward middle income earners, as well as the poor, and he also seems to be serious about reforming healthcare. As a European I would say those things are eminently sensible, but the devil is in the detail. Of course in the states, which is so indoctrinated with the mantra of big business, it will be spun as "socialism" but to me it simply seems like a less rabid version of American capitalism, and more long-term policy of stable geopolitics. Maybe I am mad, I dunno.
Where does all this money come from galbally?
We have Gordon Brown saying now that he is investing in training and more jobs, which is great but half of these newly un-employed are the very money men who caused this greed, power and misery to the middle class in the first place. Shop workers will be out of a job this Christmas because falling British prices in food and fuel mean the owners of the store's are having a hard time.
Well tough is my view.
As per bloody usual, they have caused their own downfall and then not only blame the government but immediately turn to them for a solution.
Well get in the back of the dole queue Buddy and be humble while your about it.
For Uncle Gordon to invest in the newly un-employed will mean higher taxes for those who have not robbed this country blind.
Why the feck should we bail them out??
You can bet your life these money men won't be taking any job to put food on the table for their familie's. You won't see them sweeping floors in McDonalds will you.
They are also quick enough to blame the Governments Immigration policie's when the truth of it is these people won't get up a ladder or sweep a floor for a living anyway.
I hope they rot in hell.:-5:-5
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon