Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Common sense 3
Cuts causing Thousands of unemployed and then moan about benefit payments. Tories-Finance Specialists.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Nonsense trigger, wel in part.
Noo labour kept spending happy the Banks were supporting an inflated economy.
Now however the Banks are leading us out of recession. It has to be that way in a Capitalist Society as the Government cant do it.
Back to the post though. Yes, unfortunaltey in the short term some will become unemployed.. Thsi si exaclty what unemployment benefit is there fore and I challenge anyone to dispute this. The so call moaning on benefits comes from those that chose benefits as a lifestyle, and there are loads of them So what is really your problem ?
Noo labour kept spending happy the Banks were supporting an inflated economy.
Now however the Banks are leading us out of recession. It has to be that way in a Capitalist Society as the Government cant do it.
Back to the post though. Yes, unfortunaltey in the short term some will become unemployed.. Thsi si exaclty what unemployment benefit is there fore and I challenge anyone to dispute this. The so call moaning on benefits comes from those that chose benefits as a lifestyle, and there are loads of them So what is really your problem ?
Really venator?
You'd've preferred Gordon Brown not to have rescued the financially wreckless city boys would you?
What do you think happens to mortgage holders when their bank fails?
Do you suppose they say "That's OK stop paying the mortgage - this one's on us" ?
Or do you suppose they foreclose to retrieve what assets the bank has left.
There are an awful lot of people on here that don't realise that they have a roof over their heads still because of Gordon Brown's so called wrecklessness.
And if you think that's just a socialist smokescreen - go find me where Cameron or any Tory says they wouldn't have bailed out the banks
You'd've preferred Gordon Brown not to have rescued the financially wreckless city boys would you?
What do you think happens to mortgage holders when their bank fails?
Do you suppose they say "That's OK stop paying the mortgage - this one's on us" ?
Or do you suppose they foreclose to retrieve what assets the bank has left.
There are an awful lot of people on here that don't realise that they have a roof over their heads still because of Gordon Brown's so called wrecklessness.
And if you think that's just a socialist smokescreen - go find me where Cameron or any Tory says they wouldn't have bailed out the banks
change the record jake, I agree the banks had to be bailed out, no choice but to say the Tories wouldn't have doen the same just because they kept schtumm, really you are brighter than that. Unpopular measure so if you are in opposition you let the government take the rap, QED what happenned.
Pretty well everyone with any idea, with the possible exception of Eric Cantona would agree that a high street bank cannot be allowed to collapse, that's us all back in caves.
Pretty well everyone with any idea, with the possible exception of Eric Cantona would agree that a high street bank cannot be allowed to collapse, that's us all back in caves.
Ah, you didn't need to bail them out, after all they were content to let others such as Lehman fall, so there must be alternatives. Why not buy 'em cheap when no one else wants to touch them with a ten foot bargepole, and renegotiate all existing employee contracts, just like the rest of us have to put up with. Just so long as there are banks to keep the economy going.
Ah that's the thing Old Geezer
In the US the Casino banks were kept apart from the retail ones by law
Over here that is not the case and the Government is refusing to force them to split.
Until they do that - exactly the same thing could happen again and we'd be forced to bail them out again.
They cannot continue to be too big to fail
In the US the Casino banks were kept apart from the retail ones by law
Over here that is not the case and the Government is refusing to force them to split.
Until they do that - exactly the same thing could happen again and we'd be forced to bail them out again.
They cannot continue to be too big to fail
No, Jake, any failing banks (or more precisely their administrators) would not have foreclosed their mortgagers to realise their assets. After all, what’s the point of having thousands of houses which nobody can buy? Better to retain the mortgages and generate some income. Gordon Brown had nothing to do with “keeping a roof over people’s heads”.
Having said that the rescue of the banks was not done as it should have been. Depositors should have had their funds protected and the institutions themselves allowed to go to the wall. But back to the question:
I don’t think the government is bemoaning the fact that a large number of people are going to have to claim benefits as a result of the spending cuts. Tragic as it is, it is necessary and has been caused principally by the previous administration’s mishandling of the economy. In particular by spending vast sums of cash on they did not have on useless services which benefitted nobody. (We can argue about this until the cows come home, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. The “global financial crisis” was a get-out-of-jail card which turned up just at the right moment to divert attention away from their folly).
As always, whenever this topic is aired, we seem unable to differentiate those in need because of the latest crisis and those who have chosen to live their entire lives on benefits. It is the latter which the government (under the guidance of IDS) is trying to tackle.
Having said that the rescue of the banks was not done as it should have been. Depositors should have had their funds protected and the institutions themselves allowed to go to the wall. But back to the question:
I don’t think the government is bemoaning the fact that a large number of people are going to have to claim benefits as a result of the spending cuts. Tragic as it is, it is necessary and has been caused principally by the previous administration’s mishandling of the economy. In particular by spending vast sums of cash on they did not have on useless services which benefitted nobody. (We can argue about this until the cows come home, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. The “global financial crisis” was a get-out-of-jail card which turned up just at the right moment to divert attention away from their folly).
As always, whenever this topic is aired, we seem unable to differentiate those in need because of the latest crisis and those who have chosen to live their entire lives on benefits. It is the latter which the government (under the guidance of IDS) is trying to tackle.
