Robbing Hoods (1 Viewer)

[oumahexi]

Is it just me or does it appear that the British Government are participating in what can only be described as "robbing Peter to pay Paul"?

Amid all this talk of cuts to public spending, including the NHS, Child Benefits and Welfare, we, the public, are expected to turn a blind eye to the billions being poured into Banking Institutions in an effort to bail them out.

While I can see the sense, that we all, every country, requires banks to display a healthy level of economy, it does not seem right to me that this should come at the expense of the poor. At the very least, I would like to see the Government stipulate that if we are to cut jobs and make our poor poorer in an effort to help, then the bankers (pardon the spelling, having problems with the w key on my keyboard) themselves should be prepared to give up their massive bonuses. What right do they have to claim massive sums when they are the ones who are effectively stealing the milk from the mouths of our children and the bread from our elderly? Why do Governments persist in being held to ransom by their pleas of "you'll never get anyone as good as me to do the job for less" You were crap in the first place! Maybe it is time for you to go stand in the dole que and wait with the other poor sods you are robbing and let someone with an ounce of common sense run the show. An ounce, that'll be 100% increase on what we appear to be buying now.

Phew. I love a good rant

 

[JamesMcS]

The way the bankers got away with what they got away with makes me pretty angry to be honest. We've all been saddled with a massive debt becuase the previous goevrnment stipulated nothing about payback or bonuses in the original multi billion pound bailout package - I reckon that should have been point number 1!

And all this jibber jabber about paying through the nose to keep the best people in the country is tosh. Someone will do the job just as well for a third of what they're offering.

Personally I think the government needs to re-nationalise everything, including the banks, so they're not run for profit (or any profits they do make are ploughed straight back into the economy). Better for everyone then I reckon

 

[Rich]

I would just like to point out that it was the Scots who voted in the bunch of idiots that gave all OUR money away to the banks

 

[JamesMcS]

And it was a Scot who, as chancellor, sold all our gold amongst other things and brought the country to its knees - in tandem with Tony 'Bush's lapdog' Blair who dragged us into the Oil Wars and cleaned out our coffers good and proper. Idiots.

 

[oumahexi]

Personally I think the government needs to re-nationalise everything, including the banks, so they're not run for profit (or any profits they do make are ploughed straight back into the economy). Better for everyone then I reckon

I agree, but this would not profit the rich, so it's not going to happen.

I would just like to point out that it was the Scots who voted in the bunch of idiots that gave all OUR money away to the banks

Wrong my darling, it is not possible for the Scots to vote in a government for the UK, 90% of us did not vote Tory this time yet they got in to your parliament I do, however, agree that it was Scots that gave away OUR money, but not the Scots as in all of us, again, most of us didn't even vote Labour when Gobby Brown got in. I am completely ashamed that any country man of mine would part with the amount of money they have

 

[JamesMcS]

Yep, we need a bit of a revolution in that regard I think - the government needs to be above the needs of the rich, and immune to their financial charms - an end to lobbying would be a good start I think

 

[Adam Caramon]

Yeah, its the same in the USA. Rich get richer on the backs of the common man (and woman).

 

[Vassago]

I must say though, that economically, it helps all of us if the rich keep getting richer. They get rich, spend money in Vegas, which helps everyone they contact that day keep their job. It's a cycle.

 

[Rich]

Wrong my darling, it is not possible for the Scots to vote in a government for the UK, 90% of us did not vote Tory this time yet they got in to your parliament I do, however, agree that it was Scots that gave away OUR money, but not the Scots as in all of us, again, most of us didn't even vote Labour when Gobby Brown got in. I am completely ashamed that any country man of mine would part with the amount of money they have

The Scottish vote tipped the balance in re-electing Bliar and his cronies

 

[oumahexi]

I must say though, that economically, it helps all of us if the rich keep getting richer. They get rich, spend money in Vegas, which helps everyone they contact that day keep their job. It's a cycle.

Sounds good to me. If that were so. However, on the subject of glass half empty:

Our Government gives all its money to the banks to help them out, after all they and their families have heavily invested in these institutions.

In order to fund this venture they reduce payments to essential services, NHS; Police; Social Security; Local Government; State Pensions; MoD and Education.

The unemployment level rises but there is less money to pay Social Security so the poverty line is breached. Citizens are starving, unable to negotiate their way out of the situation due to their lower levels of education brought on by lack of teachers. Crime rises as people try to make ends meet by any means, legal or otherwise. Stress causes increasing illness but is not treated and spills over into the realm of mental illness. Violent crime increases...

The Scottish vote tipped the balance in re-electing Bliar and his cronies

It did? And, supposing it did, this caused the banks to shaft the entire world how?

 

[PNGBill]

I agree with all comments and frustrations except, Nationalizing.

Think back to the cars of the late 60's and early 70's and you get an example of a Govt owned industry.

Competition is the way to go.

Problem with banks is they hold our money and we want the Govt to ensure this for us. Maybe a limit on this as I understand was the case in the past.

Remember when Lyodds were in strife, a lot of people lost out, did the Govt step in?, Why do they have to now?

 

[Fifty2One]

The executive level of a company answers directly to the shareholders, if they are okay with swinging a deal and paying out bonuses then it is their call to make and not up to the government to mandate. Sadly the government has a vested interest in keeping all of those people happy as they have a lot of money invested in order to support the social programs which are being cut. Something has to give...
If people are completely fed up with paying what they see as unfair taxes then they can revolt and bring the government down, it happens in other countries, though you can see the result of the turmoil.
Big problem would be what system would you put in place to replace the current system? You would also need to motivate enough people to actively support the idea, previous voter turnout for your general election was only 65% so obviously not enough people are mad enough... yet...

Is it just me or does it appear that the British Government are participating in what can only be described as "robbing Peter to pay Paul"?

Amid all this talk of cuts to public spending, including the NHS, Child Benefits and Welfare, we, the public, are expected to turn a blind eye to the billions being poured into Banking Institutions in an effort to bail them out.

While I can see the sense, that we all, every country, requires banks to display a healthy level of economy, it does not seem right to me that this should come at the expense of the poor. At the very least, I would like to see the Government stipulate that if we are to cut jobs and make our poor poorer in an effort to help, then the bankers (pardon the spelling, having problems with the w key on my keyboard) themselves should be prepared to give up their massive bonuses. What right do they have to claim massive sums when they are the ones who are effectively stealing the milk from the mouths of our children and the bread from our elderly? Why do Governments persist in being held to ransom by their pleas of "you'll never get anyone as good as me to do the job for less" You were crap in the first place! Maybe it is time for you to go stand in the dole que and wait with the other poor sods you are robbing and let someone with an ounce of common sense run the show. An ounce, that'll be 100% increase on what we appear to be buying now.

Phew. I love a good rant

 

[PNGBill]

Yes, Our Democracy is a precious thing that a lot of people do not have.

Democracy shouldn't be taken for granted and the poor level of voter turnout is a very bad indication, that a large number of "free World" citizens do take their freedom for granted.

If we don't vote out the leaders that do not run the country the way we want, then we will get the leadership we deserve. Be careful of what you want, sometimes what we would like is not what is good for us in the long term.

What was the voter turnout in Germany in the early 1930's ?
If the Citizens of Germany could see the destruction they bought upon themselves by just one general election, then how would they have voted?

We don't want our Govt's giving away our tax money unless they give it to us...
Australian Voters are now counting the cost of their "Handouts" that when rec'd, made the Govt very popular in the polls.

 

[boblarson]

The "business of politics" makes it very hard for any politicos to be truly concerned with what is best for their citizens as compared to how they will get re-elected.

 

[PNGBill]

Unfortunately, this is sad but true.

Where is this "perfect" leader?? Jimmy Carter was supposed to be and so was Bill Clinton, I think but both had issues that caused them to not be re elected, or would have if the issue came up.