Which additional rats screwed us today ?

Liam Byrne

I'm not exactly certain of the numbers, but just heard on the news that the Dail approved the NAMA sell-out by 4 votes.

By my reckoning (assuming none of them had the gall to cop-out of that vote, given its importance), that's 81 votes against, 85 for ?

CORRECTION : It was 77 votes to 73. Where the hell were the other scum ? And who were they, chickening out on a vote of this importance ?

77 + 73 + the new CC = 151

WHERE WERE THE OTHER 15 that could possibly have saved us ? :mad: :mad:

And - apart from the supposed "non-whip" F****ers - were there any so-called independents like Healy-Rae that should be on the receiving end of the justifiable venom ?

Biggins

Jackie def' would be one.
He's so well looked after by FF that he might as well be in the party.
I was in the Dail recently and he and Cowan were literally slapping each others backs and laughing together that much, you'd swear they were family.

Utterly sickening.

Alfasud

They were probably laughing at us idiots the people whose money they have squandered and further more were not supposed to question it.

lmimmfn

sure its only a hobby for the missing guys claiming their nice salaries, pensions, golden handshakes and what not

Well we will have Nama paid off in 11 years time, the interest on the 54billion over that time will total 16billion, so its only 70billion in total, peanuts for a luxury state like ours that can afford the best of the best politicians and pay them handsomely for their hard work( including the guys who unfortunetely couldnt make it, they might have had more pressing appointments like getting their hair cut or taking a dump ).

JonathanAnon

Didnt some people take the usual sit on the fence approach and abstain (also known as Bertie-Voting). I'd say it's easy enough to work out who voted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_30th_D%C3%A1il

well there's the list of people you would have expected to vote on the government side:

77 FF elected
1 FF Ceann Comhairle automatically reinstated.
6 Greens
4 Independents: Beverley Flynn, Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry, Finian McGrath.
2 PDs (Mary harney and Noel Grealish)
- the current Ceann Comhairle

Total: 89 I could be wrong on this and welcome any clarification. But thats a quick ball park.

166-89 = 77, so as long as they had 77 people there to vote with them, they were okay.

The government whips usually carefully manage these votes. They know who will be in there to oppose it and know how many of their supporting TDs need to be present on any day to push a motion through.

jhegarty

They could have been pairing going on.

This is where the opposition/government have someone site out the vote because someone else is travelling on government business.

It actually saves us money as otherwise they would have to travel home for the vote.

jhegarty

They could have been pairing going on.

This is where the opposition/government have someone site out the vote because someone else is travelling on government business.

It actually saves us money as otherwise they would have to travel home for the vote.

ninty9er

What exactly were we screwed on? Do you understand the NAMA concept or do you just ignorantly assume it is a builder/banker bailout because some idiot thinks so and said it enough times publicly?

Do you realise its importance to the future liquidity of the economy?

squonk

lmimmfn wrote: »

sure its only a hobby for the missing guys claiming their nice salaries, pensions, golden handshakes and what not

Well we will have Nama paid off in 11 years time, the interest on the 54billion over that time will total 16billion, so its only 70billion in total, peanuts for a luxury state like ours that can afford the best of the best politicians and pay them handsomely for their hard work( including the guys who unfortunetely couldnt make it, they might have had more pressing appointments like getting their hair cut or taking a dump ).

... or maybe skiving off around the country plugging their new autobiography!

ei.sdraob

ninty9er wrote: »

What exactly were we screwed on? Do you understand the NAMA concept or do you just ignorantly assume it is a builder/banker bailout because some idiot thinks so and said it enough times publicly?

Do you realise its importance to the future liquidity of the economy?

read and weep

the only liquidity it be providing is to the people who screwed this country up most, and creating yet another quango in process (3billion in operating expenses alone :eek:)

kippy

ninty9er wrote: »

What exactly were we screwed on? Do you understand the NAMA concept or do you just ignorantly assume it is a builder/banker bailout because some idiot thinks so and said it enough times publicly?

Do you realise its importance to the future liquidity of the economy?

I have to be honest, after reading a fair bit on NAMA in the economy forum and on other sites, I am very worried.
NAMA in itself MAY have been a good concept however the devil was in the detail, and the prices and figures being bandied about seem to line the taxpayer up for a major hit.

herya

ninty9er wrote: »

What exactly were we screwed on? Do you understand the NAMA concept or do you just ignorantly assume it is a builder/banker bailout because some idiot thinks so and said it enough times publicly?

Do you realise its importance to the future liquidity of the economy?

Doh. How exactly putting billions into Anglo Irish - which will not lend anything to anybody - will help the economy?

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

What exactly were we screwed on? Do you understand the NAMA concept or do you just ignorantly assume it is a builder/banker bailout because some idiot thinks so and said it enough times publicly?

Do you realise its importance to the future liquidity of the economy?

Nice one - throw in the word "ignorantly" and "idiot" and hope that people will diss the post and ignore the facts.

Tell me - who, exactly, is "some idiot" ? Maybe Karl Whelan [ http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1002/1224255669771.html ] or Joseph Stiglitz ?

So less of the downright patronising bull**** please; I don't listen to or base my opinion on idiots or ignorant people; a fact that probably doesn't suit your dismissive argument.

I don't believe idiots (which is probably pretty obvious given that I don't believe the idiot who bailed out Anglo without reading a report about its status) or the former Taoiseach who has feck-all memory for key issues and then writes a biography, or Mary Couglan.

So if you want to accuse people of "listening to idiots" (YOUR phrase, not mine) I'd suggest you find a mirror.

But lets humour you for a moment and indulge in your dismissive and blinkered view; given that stance - I take it that NO-ONE who opposes NAMA is intelligent and qualified in your eyes ? Or, conversely, that NO-ONE who's intelligent and qualified opposes NAMA ?

Or - based on your opening opinion, if there is anyone, I've ignored them and have listened to "some idiot" instead ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

For the record I COMPLETELY understand the NAMA concept. And I can leave out the emotive "bailout" word and still realise that paying over the current market value for something that might or might not be worth more further down the line is - AT BEST - foolish gambling. And it's foolish gambling with OUR money.

This is a party that couldn't see a downturn and ignored warnings about it, and still expect us to believe that there'll be a massive upturn within 10 years ?

Buying at a current notional value might be less of a gamble, but it would be relatively sane and fair; it would, however, still be completely against the same capitalist ethos that FF have loved so much up to now - the ones that let all of the organisations currently under NAMA to make billions in profits and bonuses out of the same Irish people.

Ahern even claimed last night that those people who made millions were the new poor! If I'd made even €1 million over 10 years I'd never be poor again!!

Now that the tide has turned, those who gambled should be the ones worst off; and should be fined and charged. And with the banks already increasing their rates in order to make even more profit (ignoring the fact that they'd be bankrupt and shut down if we hadn't been forced to intervene) then this should also be included to protect those who have - however involuntarily - saved the ****ers.

And while the "we were screwed" applies to anyone who votes for NAMA without at least some additional safeguards, the additional rats that I was referring to were the ones who didn't vote!

Finally, re a sane and sensible post : surely if votes were "paired", then the total would reflect this ?

lmimmfn

squonk wrote: »

... or maybe skiving off around the country plugging their new autobiography!

lmfao, excellent

Long Onion

herya wrote: »

Doh. How exactly putting billions into Anglo Irish - which will not lend anything to anybody - will help the economy?

Doh. We have already put billions into Anglo - before NAMA (€3.8billion if I recall correctly) and it has all gone - we have had to do this as a result of nationalisation - you know, that thing that is the alternative to NAMA.

herya

Long Onion wrote: »

Doh. We have already put billions into Anglo - before NAMA (€3.8billion if I recall correctly) and it has all gone - we have had to do this as a result of nationalisation - you know, that thing that is the alternative to NAMA.

True, that was stupid too. Which doesn't change the fact that the alleged purpose of NAMA is a lie.

And you don't need to nationalise all the banks anyway, do you? Anglo Irish should've been left to sink.

ETA: just read that 40% of NAMA budget goes into Anglo Irish. Imagine this.

ninty9er

How NAMA is operated day-to-day is not what the legislation was designed to be voted on.

All companies are required to have a memorandum of association, however it has very little bearing on how the hired manager runs them day-to-day.

I have many of the same concerns in relation to cost and re-lending to developers, but that is not a fault of the institution, it is a fault of the manner in which it may be run.

But rather than get bolchy on here about it, I prefer to direct my concerns in a calm and collected manner to TDs when I meet them.

lmimmfn

ninty9er wrote: »

How NAMA is operated day-to-day is not what the legislation was designed to be voted on.

All companies are required to have a memorandum of association, however it has very little bearing on how the hired manager runs them day-to-day.

I have many of the same concerns in relation to cost and re-lending to developers, but that is not a fault of the institution, it is a fault of the manner in which it may be run.

But rather than get bolchy on here about it, I prefer to direct my concerns in a calm and collected manner to TDs when I meet them.

Nama legislation is stated to only deliver a yearly balance sheet which is a disgrace no information on original cost of an asset and what it was sold for.

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

How NAMA is operated day-to-day is not what the legislation was designed to be voted on.

All companies are required to have a memorandum of association, however it has very little bearing on how the hired manager runs them day-to-day.

I have many of the same concerns in relation to cost and re-lending to developers, but that is not a fault of the institution, it is a fault of the manner in which it may be run.

But rather than get bolchy on here about it, I prefer to direct my concerns in a calm and collected manner to TDs when I meet them.

That all sounds very reasonable, and in isolation would be 100% acceptable, but in all fairness your previous post was unbelievably dismissive, rude and condescending in relation to anyone who has made their own informed opinions of NAMA and opposes it - including me and others who oppose it.

In addition, we're not talking about "day-to-day running" if the biggest single issue in relation to NAMA is the fact that they are paying too much for the assets in the first place; that's not "day-to-day", as it's the sole reason for it to exist.

If you put a business plan to someone saying "I'll agree to pay someone too much for something that could decrease in value, as it was grossly overpriced up to now and is levelling out to where it roughly should be, but the success of the business relies on it increasing significantly, even to cover loans", then I have no doubt that they would query it, and rightly so.

The key point being that those who oppose it include at least two qualified and well-respected experts (who - for the record - were nowhere near my local pub) whose views and opinions are available to read online to those of us who like to make well-informed opinions without blindly believing phrases like "the only show in town" from people who don't even read reports about the banks in which they invest.

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That all sounds very reasonable, and in isolation would be 100% acceptable, but in all fairness your previous post was unbelievably dismissive, rude and condescending in relation to anyone who has made their own informed opinions of NAMA and opposes it - including me and others who oppose it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

CORRECTION : It was 77 votes to 73. Where the hell were the other scum ? And who were they, chickening out on a vote of this importance ?
.......

And - apart from the supposed "non-whip" F****ers - were there any so-called independents like Healy-Rae that should be on the receiving end of the justifiable venom ?

Is calling people "scum" who dont vote the way you want or abstain not also dismissive and condescending?

bonzos

I was informed today thaT 80% cgt is also part of the nama leg. So if your council buy land from you by CPO to wided a road for €100k the gov take back €80k of it in tax....they might as well just hand you a tub of KY and tell you to bend over

turgon

ninty9er wrote: »

But rather than get bolchy on here about it, I prefer to direct my concerns in a calm and collected manner to TDs when I meet them.

Despite the fact that me and ninty99er disagree on almost everything, I think the fact that he can come onto Boards.ie and discuss Politics without sounding like a baby throwing his toys out of his pram is admirable. The same cannot be said for others, unfortunately.

@ninty9er my principal concern with NAMA is this concept of "Long term economic value." I think its unnecessary and comes across as a final concession to the developers who's loans are in trouble. Surely the government is in the driving seat and can dictate the terms?

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

Is calling people "scum" who dont vote the way you want or abstain not also dismissive and condescending?

Firstly, the phrase primarily referred to those who didn't vote that; they're being PAID BY US to represent us, and they should have been at work to vote on one of the biggest decisions in history.

You're also not quite comparing like with like; if someone's actions or statements don't ring true or fair, I'll use those words - slightly emotive and frustrated, maybe, but justified.

But if there was a topic on which I hadn't listened to their "arguments" or didn't have a clue whether they had come to an informed conclusion, and instantly assumed that they didn't have a clue, then yes, I'd be way off in calling them anything. And - without repeating anything objectionable that was said earlier - that's where the main difference lies.

Yes, I'd view Lenihan as an "idiot"; but based on his words and actions - not because I simply disagree with him : for investing without reading the Anglo report, for paying over the odds, for not playing hard-but-fair with the banks, and having heard some of what he's said, and for not putting safeguards into NAMA; that's based on facts and actions and words, not on a simple difference of opinion. By his own admission, his actions on Anglo were "ignorant" and uninformed, so it's not my fault that that description applies, now is it ?

But if I didn't know any of that, or how he says he came to his opinons, and attacked him as being (whatever), then I'd be wrong.

So there is a difference.

Eutow

Does anyone supporting NAMA actually believe that property prices will rise 10% from current prices in the next decade? House prices were well over-priced over the last few years, and probably will keep decreasing for some time. Cowan was asked on RTE a few weeks ago what would happen if property prices did not rise as the government were hoping/predicting. The answer was vague and would not fill people with confidence, but we all know what will happen, and that is why a lot of people are against it and think there is a better way of sorting this mess out.

gazzer

I presume that piece of excrement Bertie Ahern wasnt in the Dail to vote as he was whoring himself around the country promoting that fairy tale he has written??

Colm R

gazzer wrote: »

I presume that piece of excrement Bertie Ahern wasnt in the Dail to vote as he was whoring himself around the country promoting that fairy tale he has written??

yep, in Cork today. I think the pairing rule applies to him also.

SkepticOne

Eutow wrote: »

Does anyone supporting NAMA actually believe that property prices will rise 10% from current prices in the next decade? House prices were well over-priced over the last few years, and probably will keep decreasing for some time. Cowan was asked on RTE a few weeks ago what would happen if property prices did not rise as the government were hoping/predicting. The answer was vague and would not fill people with confidence, but we all know what will happen, and that is why a lot of people are against it and think there is a better way of sorting this mess out.

There is a small possibility that they will rise, imo but I personally would not put any money on it. The thing that annoys me is that it is not a business the government should be in - betting tax payers money on the future movements of markets. It is almost as if the desire is to rope in those who chose to stay out of the whole property bubble debacle, make them lose some money too.

mobpd

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20091014.XML&Node=H16&Page=16

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, the phrase primarily referred to those who didn't vote that; they're being PAID BY US to represent us, and they should have been at work to vote on one of the biggest decisions in history.

You're also not quite comparing like with like; if someone's actions or statements don't ring true or fair, I'll use those words - slightly emotive and frustrated, maybe, but justified.

But if there was a topic on which I hadn't listened to their "arguments" or didn't have a clue whether they had come to an informed conclusion, and instantly assumed that they didn't have a clue, then yes, I'd be way off in calling them anything. And - without repeating anything objectionable that was said earlier - that's where the main difference lies.

Yes, I'd view Lenihan as an "idiot"; but based on his words and actions - not because I simply disagree with him : for investing without reading the Anglo report, for paying over the odds, for not playing hard-but-fair with the banks, and having heard some of what he's said, and for not putting safeguards into NAMA; that's based on facts and actions and words, not on a simple difference of opinion. By his own admission, his actions on Anglo were "ignorant" and uninformed, so it's not my fault that that description applies, now is it ?

But if I didn't know any of that, or how he says he came to his opinons, and attacked him as being (whatever), then I'd be wrong.

So there is a difference.

I disagree.The title of your thread is "what additional rats screwed us today". Please correct me if Im wrong but this implies that the people who voted for NAMA are rats who screwed us, and those who didnt turn up or abstained are additional rats who screwed us, does it not?

In light of the fact that TDs in the Dail who voted for NAMA have been dubbed "Rats" by you and "scum" (although the latter was "primarily" aimed at those abstaining) youre complaining about others being dismissive and rude on Anti-NAMA opinion does not seem to ring "true" or "fair" does it?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

if someone's actions or statements don't ring true or fair, I'll use those words - slightly emotive and frustrated, maybe, but justified.

According to your own arguments anyone may be in a position to justifyably use the words "scum" and "rat" to describe you for the reasons that your arguments "dont ring true" as described above?

I disagree with this/you but would point out that your arguments are self evidently self righteous and hypocritical. Self righteousness is almost always followed by hypocrisy. They are two sides of the same coin.

Liam Byrne

T runner wrote: »

I disagree.The title of your thread is "what additional rats screwed us today". Please correct me if Im wrong but this implies that the people who voted for NAMA are rats who screwed us, and those who didnt turn up or abstained are additional rats who screwed us, does it not?

Well, while I do have a very low opinion of those who devised NAMA, and those who voted for it, for obvious reasons, it's pretty obvious that the ones who screwed us initially were the banks and developers. So regardless of my view on those foisting NAMA on us, anyone who copped out of the vote today is "additional". So you asked me to correct you - will I, or will I let the facts speak for themselves ?

T runner wrote: »

In light of the fact that TDs in the Dail who voted for NAMA have been dubbed "Rats" by you and "scum" (although the latter was "primarily" aimed at those abstaining) youre complaining about others being dismissive and rude on Anti-NAMA opinion does not seem to ring "true" or "fair" does it?

Did you even read my reply ? The dismissive and rude was related to the poster implying that I couldn't possibly have read up on it or understood it or took my advice from "some idiots", despite the number of qualified and respected people who are against it.

All of this said with no factual basis other than me having a differing opinion.

In contrast, those who voted and are in favour are taking the word of someone who has already invested billions in a corrupt and failed bank without even reading the report.

So
1) The earlier attack was 100% unwarranted, because it has no basis in fact
2) Those in favour are on more dodgy ground than me, based on the track record of who they're taking their advice from, combined with the size of the unjustifiable gamble
3) Those who voted in favour are not representing an AWFUL lot of people, for the same reason
4) Those who didn't vote should be named and shamed, since they have "no opinion" in either direction; I do not know ANYONE who has "no opinion" in either direction

So I'll repeat again; you're not bothering to compare like with like. So I won't bother arguing, as the thread will become about this - think whatever you like.

T runner wrote: »

According to your own arguments anyone may be in a position to justifyably use the words "scum" and "rat" to describe you for the reasons that your arguments "dont ring true" as described above?

Absolute rubbish; if I

a) had an opinion on NAMA without being informed, and mouthed off based on no facts or informed opinion

b) was entrusted with - and paid for - representing the people, but didn't bother, or followed the advice of an "idiot" while doing so....

....THEN you might have a case.

T runner wrote: »

I disagree with this/you but would point out that your arguments are self evidently self righteous and hypocritical. Self righteousness is almost always followed by hypocrisy. They are two sides of the same coin.

"Self-evident" obviously depends on your viewpoint; I guess the fact that the light is on wouldn't be "self-evident" to a blind person . I've explained twice at this stage, and if you choose not to want to see the difference then fire away.....

Of course, talking about me and dragging the thread off-topic might prevent people from questioning why some people didn't bother voting - or the obvious flaws, gamble, and inherent injustice in NAMA already raised - which might suit the opinions of some people here.

So this is my last word on the subject. Anyone objective can judge for themselves - I might have phrased the initial post a little emotively in fury and frustration, but there is absolutely no "self righteousness or hypocrisy" in any of the above - I have a factual basis for any opinion of anyone I've criticised.

bonkey

A bit less bile in your posts wouldn't go astray, gentlemen.