Continuation from Chit Chat Thread at mod request

Buford T Justice

Starting a new Thread at mod request.

Cwhyte wrote: »

Really don't want to start on prof tom keane and harney. Both of whom were willing to make recommendations and follow them up off pieces of paper, and yet not willing to actual travel the necessary journey to see the consequences of their decisions. Its nothing short of a disgrace and already it seems to be forgotten by people around the town.

You'll get no argument from me here. I agree that the decision to move the cancer services to Galway was deplorable and completely abhorrent. Like I've already said, the government doesn't give a monkeys what the people think, thats why the buried their heads in the sand

Cwhyte wrote: »

So how anyone can justify perpetuating a system of gangsters in the banking system and not being able to invest in the health care is beyond me.

Because it was a necessary evil, Simples.

Cwhyte wrote: »

If the bank bailouts were necessary, and I'm not saying that they weren't, at the very least the government should have taken control of the banks. They have proven incapable of running themselves so for the money being used on NAMA the government should have just taken control of the banks and secured peoples money and investments, rather than throw money at the banking sector and allow them to run wild again.

Indeed, the banks have cocked this up gloriously. On the other hand, the government has also proven themselves completely incapable of running a country too. What makes you think that they would do any better? Also they have appointed a number of officials to the banks that they have bailed out.

Cwhyte wrote: »

When they start accepting the publics money then I think that any independence to run themselves is voided.

Ok, but if you get a loan from a bank does that mean that they have a say in how you spend it too? (Apologies for using the bank as an example)

Cwhyte wrote: »

How did I infer that? I think it extenuates circumstances for people but I don't think that I inferred the recession and homelessness were inextricably linked.

Again I never blamed the homeless situation on the current economic crisis, your badly twisting my words. I think that with financial hardships people are facing at the minute that it obvious could be the cause for a few cases, but never did I say both were linked. If your referring back to the other campaign that was a separate issue that needed highlighting but is not linked to the cancer campaign.

Ok, then maybe I've mis-interpreted some of what you have posted at the start. Partly because of some of your type-o's changed the meaning of some words and also because some of what you have written has been difficult to follow. I did however get the impression that because you were talking about three different things in the same post that they were all the same.

Cwhyte wrote: »

The point of this poster was quite simple. The government handed over billions to the banks. NAMA alone, and this pointed out by the opposition, was very risky and alternatives were available that would allow less risk and more value for what was necessary spending. If the government are willing to risk so much money, why not be able to invest a tiny portion of that money into a complete overhaul of the cancer services strategy.

I think NAMA was a bad Idea too, but again something had to be done and the current incumbents are far too pig headed to accept suggestions from the opposition, thats why we had nama. The money they have given to the banks was to secure the money that the people of this county have invested in them. If they didn't we would have lost all our savings etc.... They guaranteed our money, not put money in the pocket of the bankers.

Cwhyte wrote: »

The way things stand at the minute, we have less control of the banks than before yet billions invested. So was it really worth it if the government does not have as much control? The cancer services, imo, are a better way to spend money.

I agree, Spending 50 billion on cancer services would definitely be better, but its not a realistic suggestion. These two examples are on opposite sides of the spectrum.
How do we have less control over the banks now than we did before, given that there are government appointed representatives in the banks?

darealtulip wrote: »

A lot of services do indeed suffer because of this.

Again, I disagree. The budget cuts are as a result of the deficit in the public finances. This is not related to the money that was given to the banks. Nama or not, there would still be as much deficit in the finances because of the slow down in the housing market, loss of tax revenue etc... all the usual things that generate revenue for the country.

Banking crisis or no banking crisis, it wouldn't have changed the way the cancer services were affected in Sligo

darealtulip

But because the debt Ireland already had the money they had to give to the made this even debt bigger. It was not money they had.

That public spending was already very high and had to come down any way due to less tax income. I do agree with you there but it never helps if huge investment put extra pressure on the already tight budget (the payments on the money borrowed do).

And a question: I thought NAMA was more for the developers then for the banks? I'm I right or did I misunderstood that?

Buford T Justice

darealtulip wrote: »

But because the debt Ireland already had the money they had to give to the made this even debt bigger. It was not money they had.

That public spending was already very high and had to come down any way due to less tax income. I do agree with you there but it never helps if huge investment put extra pressure on the already tight budget (the payments on the money borrowed do).

And a question: I thought NAMA was more for the developers then for the banks? I'm I right or did I misunderstood that?

No its for the banks as a result of toxic debts from developers. Nama will buy the debt off the banks and they will persue the developers for the cash

darealtulip

Fingers McGee wrote: »

No its for the banks as a result of toxic debts from developers. Nama will buy the debt off the banks and they will persue the developers for the cash

Ahh I see where I got mixed up with that one. So they basicly take over the risk from the banks and ease up on the developers?

Does the state get the property if they can't retrieve funds?

Buford T Justice

darealtulip wrote: »

Ahh I see where I got mixed up with that one. So they basicly take over the risk from the banks and ease up on the developers?

Does the state get the property if they can't retrieve funds?

Yes, including lands that were bought overseas. The problem with that is the land isn't worth a third of what it was when it was bought, so its still a huge loss. They can't sell it on cos they won't get the value for it (yet anyway)

darealtulip

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Yes, including lands that were bought overseas. The problem with that is the land isn't worth a third of what it was when it was bought, so its still a huge loss. They can't sell it on cos they won't get the value for it (yet anyway)

And to get back to the height of these prices will take a decade?

Smart move... not or maybe they were afraid that they had to bail out the banks a second time.