In article ,
charles wrote:
In the US, many individuals knew full well that their actions were
likely to bring down the institution they worked for but they didn't
care, they would have made their personal fortune.

but don't you remember the socialist screams that banks wouldn't lend to
the poor.

But this wasn't about giving huge mortgages to those who couldn't afford
to repay them - on properties that weren't worth it.
More that banks couldn't be bothered with small accounts. Unlike once.
They only wanted those they could make a large profit out of. Regardless
of risk.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
housetrained wrote:
Here's an idea: why don't we take all the money away from the people
who've worked hard for it and give it to the poor bloodsucking scum
who've done **** all except produce babies, take drugs and commit crime?

Oh, hang on...

we already do that, come round and see me, I'll point out their flats
housetrained

You need to work harder so you can move from such an area.

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/01/2012 09:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

No it's not, it's personal irresponibility, facilitated by the socialist
welfare state.

Only the likes you would blame the individual rather than bank.

So are you saying the individual shares no responsibility? If you are,
you're a socialist moron.

I'm old enough to remember when banks only gave mortgages to those who
could demonstrate they could afford to repay them, and only on properties
worth more than the mortgage. 'Market forces' changed all that in the rush
to grab money.

Individuals always had the option of saying "no".

It would be fair enough if the banks took the
responsibility for their actions - but not when it is the taxpayer who has
to pick up the tab.

Is this the same tax payer who pays out vast sums of money to the
fake-disabled and workshy?

Perhaps if we could restore some kind of work ethic and personal
responsibility, people would be too busy to feel the need to fill their
days with non-essential luxury items bought from China on credit.
Unfortunately, that ethic hasn't existed for over 50 years.

In article ,
Silk wrote:
No it's not, it's personal irresponibility, facilitated by the
socialist welfare state.

Only the likes you would blame the individual rather than bank.

So are you saying the individual shares no responsibility? If you are,
you're a socialist moron.

The bank is the professional and lending the money so it is their
responsibiliy to make sure it is a reasonably safe investment.

Or perhaps the likes of you expect a patient to know more about their
illness than the doctor?

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Bob Latham wrote:
If you're going to have a pop at our welfare system please accuse it of
things it actually has done and got wrong, there's plenty to choose from.

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

But no - they only want payments stopped to others.

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

This bogus argument is used for lots of things. The general form of
it is that if you oppose something because the bad points outweigh the
good, then you should put up with the bad points and also forego the
good.

But no - they only want payments stopped to others.

That of course is unreasonable.

-- Richard

In article ,
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

This bogus argument is used for lots of things. The general form of
it is that if you oppose something because the bad points outweigh the
good, then you should put up with the bad points and also forego the
good.

But no - they only want payments stopped to others.

That of course is unreasonable.

It's one of the worse aspects of normal human thinking that they can
always look after themselves. And are immortal.

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 19/01/2012 11:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Bob wrote:
If you're going to have a pop at our welfare system please accuse it of
things it actually has done and got wrong, there's plenty to choose from.

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

But no - they only want payments stopped to others.

I'm a net contributer. I don't mind contributing for the greater good,
which includes those in genuine need. What I object to is supporting
those who have no intention of being a net contributor and continue to
burden the state with their irresponsibility.

What's even worse is when the liberal socialists try to tell us it
doesn't happen when it's obvious for all to see that it does.

On 19/01/2012 11:11, Richard Tobin wrote:
In ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

This bogus argument is used for lots of things.

Socialists are the masters of bogus arguments. I hear them every day on
radio phone-ins trying to tell us that there's no such thing as a
benefit scrounger.

On 19/01/2012 11:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Richard wrote:
In ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

It would also be more honest if those who dislike the welfare system
refused any payments from it they are entitled to.

This bogus argument is used for lots of things. The general form of
it is that if you oppose something because the bad points outweigh the
good, then you should put up with the bad points and also forego the
good.

But no - they only want payments stopped to others.

That of course is unreasonable.

It's one of the worse aspects of normal human thinking that they can
always look after themselves. And are immortal.

There's a big difference between those who fall on hard times through no
fault of their own and those who make a career out of benefit scrounging.