Has Anybody Here Been On Benefits?

24th April 2014

How long for?

What was the reason you first went on them?

Just got off the phone with my daughter. She's pissed off. She works all hours God sends trying to make a profit with her business. She has two friends who are on benefits. They've both had one holiday and are going on a second one; one's going to Egypt - yet she can't afford a week at the seaside in the UK!

It's awful Tess.

Our system was turned completely upside down under the Labour government.

BigAndy9 wrote:It's awful Tess.

Our system was turned completely upside down under the Labour government.

Aren't you happy then that the Tories have cut benefits then?

The Universal credit system is a shambles apparently and people can no longer afford to feed their children so have to resort to food banks.I believe it was you that linked that newspaper article saying that hungry people were stealing food from said food banks,the peasants.

So the divide between rich and poor has never been wider and the average family is over one thousand ,seven hundred pounds a year worse off.Benefits ate slashed,families going to food banks.

A Britain to be proud of I'm sure.

Tesstacious wrote:Just got off the phone with my daughter.  She's pissed off.  She works all hours God sends trying to make a profit with her business.  She has two friends who are on benefits.  They've both had one holiday and are going on a second one; one's going to Egypt - yet she can't afford a week at the seaside in the UK!

Waste of time fretting over small turnips, Tess. If your daughter wants to vent her urine, there's a lot more money in criticising oil subsidies. Corporate welfare is by far the greater rip-off.

Original Quill wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:Just got off the phone with my daughter.  She's pissed off.  She works all hours God sends trying to make a profit with her business.  She has two friends who are on benefits.  They've both had one holiday and are going on a second one; one's going to Egypt - yet she can't afford a week at the seaside in the UK!

Waste of time fretting over small turnips, Tess.    If your daughter wants to vent her urine, there's a lot more money in criticising oil subsidies.  Corporate welfare is by far the greater rip-off.

Of course they are, but we weren't discussing that - we were discussing the benefit system, and it is galling to work your nuts off, come home exhausted with hardly any money to show for it, while your friends are having a good time without having to work at all. The whole system, benefits, banksters, oil companies, the works, is crap and needs a total overhaul. The only way to get that is by anarchy.

Tesstacious wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Waste of time fretting over small turnips, Tess.    If your daughter wants to vent her urine, there's a lot more money in criticising oil subsidies.  Corporate welfare is by far the greater rip-off.

Of course they are, but we weren't discussing that - we were discussing the benefit system, and it is galling to work your nuts off, come home exhausted with hardly any money to show for it, while your friends are having a good time without having to work at all.  The whole system, benefits, banksters, oil companies, the works, is crap and needs a total overhaul.  The only way to get that is by anarchy.

This stuff about being on benefits and being rich enough to afford holidays is a falliacy,

Benefits don't give people alot of money,it's just enough to make ends meet,none left over for luxuries.

If an individual is able to go on holiday and the only money they receive is benefits they must have had a certain amount in the bank to start with.

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:It's awful Tess.

Our system was turned completely upside down under the Labour government.

Aren't you happy then that the Tories have cut benefits then?

The Universal credit system is a shambles apparently and people can no longer afford to feed their children so have to resort to food banks.I believe it was you that linked that newspaper article saying that hungry people were stealing food from said food banks,the peasants.

So the divide between rich and poor has never been wider and the average family is over one thousand ,seven hundred pounds a year worse off.Benefits ate slashed,families going to food banks.

A Britain to be proud of I'm sure.

Good afternoon Fluffy Bunny.

Fluffy,the concept & use of food banks has been proven to be false & ill used.

There is prove from more than one source including volunters at the food banks who say that anybody can use them & are regularly doing so.

Many of the so called users are spending their benefits on drugs,booze & Rambo DVDs.

The banks are just a left wing scam designed to make the present government look bad.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Of course they are, but we weren't discussing that - we were discussing the benefit system, and it is galling to work your nuts off, come home exhausted with hardly any money to show for it, while your friends are having a good time without having to work at all.  The whole system, benefits, banksters, oil companies, the works, is crap and needs a total overhaul.  The only way to get that is by anarchy.

This stuff about being on benefits and being rich enough to afford holidays is a falliacy,

Benefits don't give people alot of money,it's just enough to make ends meet,none left over for luxuries.

If an individual is able to go on holiday and the only money they receive is benefits they must have had a certain amount in the bank to start with.

No they don't have money in the bank, just children!

Tesstacious wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

This stuff about being on benefits and being rich enough to afford holidays is a falliacy,

Benefits don't give people alot of money,it's just enough to make ends meet,none left over for luxuries.

If an individual is able to go on holiday and the only money they receive is benefits they must have had a certain amount in the bank to start with.

No they don't have money in the bank, just children!

Well children need to be fed and clothed and it's not their fault their parents are unable to find work.
I doubt you're suggesting that the children should suffer because the parents are not currently working.

In the grand scheme of things this is really not a big deal..!

Tesstacious wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Waste of time fretting over small turnips, Tess.    If your daughter wants to vent her urine, there's a lot more money in criticising oil subsidies.  Corporate welfare is by far the greater rip-off.

Of course they are, but we weren't discussing that - we were discussing the benefit system, and it is galling to work your nuts off, come home exhausted with hardly any money to show for it, while your friends are having a good time without having to work at all.  The whole system, benefits, banksters, oil companies, the works, is crap and needs a total overhaul.  The only way to get that is by anarchy.

You are evading, Tess. The point is, your concerns are wasted when there are bigger holes in the dam. Corporate welfare is about benefits for the rich. Social welfare is about ordinary people. The rich don't need welfare.

"First feed the face, then talk right and wrong." -Bertold Brecht.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
No they don't have money in the bank, just children!

Well children need to be fed and clothed and it's not their fault their parents are unable to find work.
I doubt you're suggesting that the children should suffer because the parents are not currently working.

In the grand scheme of things this is really not a big deal..!

There are no 'parents' just one parent - who's never worked in her life (either of them, two sisters), despite being the same age as my daughter. No-one saying they shouldn't feed and clothe their children, but holidays abroad aren't strictly a necessity!

Original Quill wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
Of course they are, but we weren't discussing that - we were discussing the benefit system, and it is galling to work your nuts off, come home exhausted with hardly any money to show for it, while your friends are having a good time without having to work at all.  The whole system, benefits, banksters, oil companies, the works, is crap and needs a total overhaul.  The only way to get that is by anarchy.

You are evading, Tess.  The point is, your concerns are wasted when there are bigger holes in the dam.  Corporate welfare is about benefits for the rich.  Social welfare is about ordinary people.  The rich don't need welfare.  

"First feed the face, then talk right and wrong."  -Bertold Brecht.

But they are all holes in the dam! And I do my fair share of voicing my concerns over Corporate greed (though not on this forum, serious subjecs are few and far between the forum frollicks on here). The welfare hole is leaking a pretty big pool of water too you know, so shouldn't be ignored. And tbh I don't moan much about it, it was just coincidence that Andy's thread came up just after I'd spoken to my daughter.

Tesstacious wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are evading, Tess.  The point is, your concerns are wasted when there are bigger holes in the dam.  Corporate welfare is about benefits for the rich.  Social welfare is about ordinary people.  The rich don't need welfare.  

"First feed the face, then talk right and wrong."  -Bertold Brecht.

But they are all holes in the dam! And I do my fair share of voicing my concerns over Corporate greed (though not on this forum, serious subjecs are few and far between the forum frollicks on here).  The welfare hole is leaking a pretty big pool of water too you know, so shouldn't be ignored.  And tbh I don't moan much about it, it was just coincidence that Andy's thread came up just after I'd spoken to my daughter.

Tess we all know that too much money is being dished out in the form of benefits.Even those who pretend to oppose the Tories recent benefit cutbacks can count & have a reasonable understanding of financial economics.Which means that they must know that too much is paid out in benefits.

Why they lie I don't know.Because they must know that there is no financial or any other kind of benefit to society when benefits are given to Roma gypsies over here who don't work & have never had any intention of working.

It's mystifying as to why a left winger would somehow justify those gypsie being paid benefits.

Those people who talk about benefits being just enough to live on forget that the people getting them don't actually have to work to live, whilst others who are paying for the benefits do have to. All this talk about not being able to afford luxuries is nonsense - they have the luxury of not having to do anything like get up early and spend time commuting to work, and having to put up with rules and bolshy bosses.

Tesstacious wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Well children need to be fed and clothed and it's not their fault their parents are unable to find work.
I doubt you're suggesting that the children should suffer because the parents are not currently working.

In the grand scheme of things this is really not a big deal..!

There are no 'parents' just one parent - who's never worked in her life (either of them, two sisters), despite being the same age as my daughter.  No-one saying they shouldn't feed and clothe their children, but holidays abroad aren't strictly a necessity!

I didn't say they were,infact I don't consider holidays a necessity.

I am always a bit dubious when I hear such things as the benefits being given now are at an all time low and people are insisting they can't feed and clothe their children on what is a very meager amount of money,a pittance actually.

If this individual you know is truly only on benefits and able to go on holiday they have found money by other means.The money provided by benefits is simply not enough.

Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

I don't think it's just about the actual money though, it's about lifestyle. As Tess said, her daughter can't afford to go on holiday but her mates on benefits can. Even if they couldn't, well they don't actually have to lift a finger to work.

A lot of people who buy houses or rent them have to go for something quite small, and yet people in council houses who don't work and get their rent paid for them are moaning that they can't have a spare room for free.

It just seems that the more irresponsible and ungrateful you are, the more you are rewarded.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

I agree about the banksters - should've let them burn. Then again maybe that's naive, working people had their savings invested in them etc, I'm not very clued up on economics, maybe it would have caused more problems than it solved. As for the bankers themselves though, they should've definitely been locked up.

Well, I suggest that the only solution to this is for one of our British members to volunteer as an undercover benefits "scrounger." I'm sure the Daily Mail would go for the idea.

Quit your job and live for a year on benefits. Be sure to send lots of photos from Aruba and your other exotic holiday destinations, along with descriptions of your palatial living quarters and five-star meals that you enjoy while on benefits.

Seriously, somebody should put their money where their mouth is.

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

I agree about the banksters - should've let them burn.  Then again maybe that's naive, working people had their savings invested in them etc, I'm not very clued up on economics, maybe it would have caused more problems than it solved.  As for the bankers themselves though, they should've definitely been locked up.

Well yes, what about the people with savings? It's bad enough that the interest rate is so low without losing all your savings.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I suggest that the only solution to this is for one of our British members to volunteer as an undercover benefits "scrounger." I'm sure the Daily Mail would go for the idea.

Quit your job and live for a year on benefits. Be sure to send lots of photos from Aruba and your other exotic holiday destinations, along with descriptions of your palatial living quarters and five-star meals that you enjoy while on benefits.

Seriously, somebody should put their money where their mouth is.

Whether or not they can afford any of that, the point is that they don't have to work to live, unlike others, and yet they still moan that they can't afford things. There's just no gratitude to the tax payers, without whom those on benefits would be living in a cardboard box.

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

I agree about the banksters - should've let them burn.  Then again maybe that's naive, working people had their savings invested in them etc, I'm not very clued up on economics, maybe it would have caused more problems than it solved.  As for the bankers themselves though, they should've definitely been locked up.

What did the bankers actually do wrong? I can never quite understand it all.

But surely these guys didn't need to be paying themselves bonuses year after year well in excess of £1 million? Even if it took a lot of money to save the banking system itself, the bankers should have ended up in prison, not shopping for new sports cars and mansions on the taxpayer's bill.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I suggest that the only solution to this is for one of our British members to volunteer as an undercover benefits "scrounger." I'm sure the Daily Mail would go for the idea.

Quit your job and live for a year on benefits. Be sure to send lots of photos from Aruba and your other exotic holiday destinations, along with descriptions of your palatial living quarters and five-star meals that you enjoy while on benefits.

Seriously, somebody should put their money where their mouth is.

I've got a better idea for you Ben.Come & live over here for a few months & you'd soon see the benefits rip off in action.

Maybe you can tell me why this government allows Roma gypsies to live here on benefits when there was no hope of them getting jobs in the first place.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning.

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, I suggest that the only solution to this is for one of our British members to volunteer as an undercover benefits "scrounger." I'm sure the Daily Mail would go for the idea.

Quit your job and live for a year on benefits. Be sure to send lots of photos from Aruba and your other exotic holiday destinations, along with descriptions of your palatial living quarters and five-star meals that you enjoy while on benefits.

Seriously, somebody should put their money where their mouth is.

I've got a better idea for you Ben.Come & live over here for a few months & you'd soon see the benefits rip off in action.

Maybe you can tell me why this government allows Roma gypsies to live here on benefits when there was no hope of them getting jobs in the first place.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning.

Has it occurred to you that even if I was living over there, I might still perceive the situation much differently from those who whinge on about scroungers all day?

The whingers start from a place where they suspect everyone on benefits doesn't deserve them, and they proceed to look for confirming evidence. I start with the assumption that most people aren't cheaters, and that you need to have evidence that they are cheaters before you start accusing them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

I've got a better idea for you Ben.Come & live over here for a few months & you'd soon see the benefits rip off in action.

Maybe you can tell me why this government allows Roma gypsies to live here on benefits when there was no hope of them getting jobs in the first place.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning.

Has it occurred to you that even if I was living over there, I might still perceive the situation much differently from those who whinge on about scroungers all day?

The whingers start from a place where they suspect everyone on benefits doesn't deserve them, and they proceed to look for confirming evidence. I start with the assumption that most people aren't cheaters, and that you need to have evidence that they are cheaters before you start accusing them.

What do you mean by "cheaters" though? Do you include people who could get a job but choose not to? I know people who work and who say they would actually be better off on benefits, and that's just not right is it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

I've got a better idea for you Ben.Come & live over here for a few months & you'd soon see the benefits rip off in action.

Maybe you can tell me why this government allows Roma gypsies to live here on benefits when there was no hope of them getting jobs in the first place.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning.

Has it occurred to you that even if I was living over there, I might still perceive the situation much differently from those who whinge on about scroungers all day?

The whingers start from a place where they suspect everyone on benefits doesn't deserve them, and they proceed to look for confirming evidence. I start with the assumption that most people aren't cheaters, and that you need to have evidence that they are cheaters before you start accusing them.

So from your reply,I can only assume that you believe that everyone who questions the issue of benefits is a whinger.

Try looking outside of the box Ben.We're not all whingers & we actually care about our economy & those who genuinely deserve benefits.

But you don't think like that Ben as you are a typical sterotyper.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I've pointed it out elsewhere, but in 2008 the U.K. gave £850 billion, nearly double the national budget, to the banks as a bailout. That was ten times more money than the U.K. gives out to the working-age poor in a year. And yet I don't see nearly as much howling over that bailout going to a tiny number of people who were already very rich as I see over a fraction of that amount going to a much larger number of people who truly need help.

I agree about the banksters - should've let them burn.  Then again maybe that's naive, working people had their savings invested in them etc, I'm not very clued up on economics, maybe it would have caused more problems than it solved.  As for the bankers themselves though, they should've definitely been locked up.

What did the bankers actually do wrong? I can never quite understand it all.

I'll try to put this in a nutshell, though it does get complicated. You have to remember throughout that the banks are international corporations, so even though this started in the U.S., it affected many British and other countries' banks.

Banks doing business here started offering "sub-prime mortgages," mortgage loans to people with less than excellent credit. In some cases these loans were ridiculous -- think a $500,000 loan to a pizza delivery driver.

That's a bad situation in and of itself, but then the banks compounded the danger created by making these risky loans when they started "bundling" the loans as investment products. To break that down, you might take 100 mortgages, treat them as one unit and get people to invest money in them on the theory that even if 50 people defaulted, the bundle overall would still be generating some income.

Now, banks that hold your life's savings aren't allowed to make risky investments. And while the bundled mortgages should have seemed a risky investment to anybody with sense, the ratings agencies gave bundled subprime mortgages the tip-top ratings -- meaning, banks that hold your life's savings could invest in bundled subprime mortgages.

At that point all it would take would be a slight economic downturn to start a domino chain. People started losing their jobs and were unable to repay their mortgages; their bundled mortgages suddenly became practically worthless; the banks suddenly found themselves with a metric shit-ton of their money invested in now-worthless bundled mortgages. (As a side note, some institutions also sold assets that were advertised as being "insurance" for investments such as these but which could never have actually worked as advertised.)

At that point, the banks' value plummeted and they were in the same danger as any company that finds itself largely worthless -- they could have had to go out of business, taking a bunch of people's deposits with them.

If you ask me, cash injections should have been made to stabilize the banking industry, executive wages should have been frozen at 2007 levels for five years, executives should have been investigated for corruption and a whole slew of new regulations should have been introduced to prevent things like that from happening again. Instead, the bankers did indeed end up personally pocketing a lot of taxpayer money and very little has changed.

Shady wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

I've got a better idea for you Ben.Come & live over here for a few months & you'd soon see the benefits rip off in action.

Maybe you can tell me why this government allows Roma gypsies to live here on benefits when there was no hope of them getting jobs in the first place.

I'd be interested to read your reasoning.

Has it occurred to you that even if I was living over there, I might still perceive the situation much differently from those who whinge on about scroungers all day?

The whingers start from a place where they suspect everyone on benefits doesn't deserve them, and they proceed to look for confirming evidence. I start with the assumption that most people aren't cheaters, and that you need to have evidence that they are cheaters before you start accusing them.

So from your reply,I can only assume that you believe that everyone who questions the issue of benefits is a whinger.

Try looking outside of the box Ben.We're not all whingers & we actually care about our economy & those who genuinely deserve benefits.

But you don't think like that Ben as you are a typical sterotyper.

Actually I completely agree that benefits cheating needs to be policed and that economic matters are important. But that's not what I see from the whingers. I see resentment, I see people acting like every cheater discovered is a typical example of the average benefits recipient, etc. And a lot of nasty terms that show how low regard they hold recipients in in the first place. It's all over the place, Shady; you'd have to be blind not to recognize it for the hate and bigotry that it is.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What did the bankers actually do wrong? I can never quite understand it all.

I'll try to put this in a nutshell, though it does get complicated. You have to remember throughout that the banks are international corporations, so even though this started in the U.S., it affected many British and other countries' banks.

Banks doing business here started offering "sub-prime mortgages," mortgage loans to people with less than excellent credit. In some cases these loans were ridiculous -- think a $500,000 loan to a pizza delivery driver.

That's a bad situation in and of itself, but then the banks compounded the danger created by making these risky loans when they started "bundling" the loans as investment products. To break that down, you might take 100 mortgages, treat them as one unit and get people to invest money in them on the theory that even if 50 people defaulted, the bundle overall would still be generating some income.

Now, banks that hold your life's savings aren't allowed to make risky investments. And while the bundled mortgages should have seemed a risky investment to anybody with sense, the ratings agencies gave bundled subprime mortgages the tip-top ratings -- meaning, banks that hold your life's savings could invest in bundled subprime mortgages.

At that point all it would take would be a slight economic downturn to start a domino chain. People started losing their jobs and were unable to repay their mortgages; their bundled mortgages suddenly became practically worthless; the banks suddenly found themselves with a metric shit-ton of their money invested in now-worthless bundled mortgages. (As a side note, some institutions also sold assets that were advertised as being "insurance" for investments such as these but which could never have actually worked as advertised.)

At that point, the banks' value plummeted and they were in the same danger as any company that finds itself largely worthless -- they could have had to go out of business, taking a bunch of people's deposits with them.

If you ask me, cash injections should have been made to stabilize the banking industry, executive wages should have been frozen at 2007 levels for five years, executives should have been investigated for corruption and a whole slew of new regulations should have been introduced to prevent things like that from happening again. Instead, the bankers did indeed end up personally pocketing a lot of taxpayer money and very little has changed.

Fabulous - thank you.

Could it not be said though that many people were borrowing beyond their means so that's their own fault. I mean, nobody made them take out these mortgages did they? That also meant that house prices went up.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What did the bankers actually do wrong? I can never quite understand it all.

I'll try to put this in a nutshell, though it does get complicated. You have to remember throughout that the banks are international corporations, so even though this started in the U.S., it affected many British and other countries' banks.

Banks doing business here started offering "sub-prime mortgages," mortgage loans to people with less than excellent credit. In some cases these loans were ridiculous -- think a $500,000 loan to a pizza delivery driver.

That's a bad situation in and of itself, but then the banks compounded the danger created by making these risky loans when they started "bundling" the loans as investment products. To break that down, you might take 100 mortgages, treat them as one unit and get people to invest money in them on the theory that even if 50 people defaulted, the bundle overall would still be generating some income.

Now, banks that hold your life's savings aren't allowed to make risky investments. And while the bundled mortgages should have seemed a risky investment to anybody with sense, the ratings agencies gave bundled subprime mortgages the tip-top ratings -- meaning, banks that hold your life's savings could invest in bundled subprime mortgages.

At that point all it would take would be a slight economic downturn to start a domino chain. People started losing their jobs and were unable to repay their mortgages; their bundled mortgages suddenly became practically worthless; the banks suddenly found themselves with a metric shit-ton of their money invested in now-worthless bundled mortgages. (As a side note, some institutions also sold assets that were advertised as being "insurance" for investments such as these but which could never have actually worked as advertised.)

At that point, the banks' value plummeted and they were in the same danger as any company that finds itself largely worthless -- they could have had to go out of business, taking a bunch of people's deposits with them.

If you ask me, cash injections should have been made to stabilize the banking industry, executive wages should have been frozen at 2007 levels for five years, executives should have been investigated for corruption and a whole slew of new regulations should have been introduced to prevent things like that from happening again. Instead, the bankers did indeed end up personally pocketing a lot of taxpayer money and very little has changed.

Fabulous - thank you.

Could it not be said though that many people were borrowing beyond their means so that's their own fault. I mean, nobody made them take out these mortgages did they? That also meant that house prices went up.

There's some merit to that argument, but I still think that the banks themselves, who do this for a living and know way more about it than the average borrower, have to take the ultimate responsibility when all's said and done. They certainly played games with people's livelihood.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fabulous - thank you.

Could it not be said though that many people were borrowing beyond their means so that's their own fault. I mean, nobody made them take out these mortgages did they? That also meant that house prices went up.

There's some merit to that argument, but I still think that the banks themselves, who do this for a living and know way more about it than the average borrower, have to take the ultimate responsibility when all's said and done. They certainly played games with people's livelihood.

I think this is where we differ on many issues. I think that people know very well when they are borrowing too much, and they have a responsibility to themselves to not do so rather than blame anyone else. It's like blaming a shop for selling chocolate rather than blaming oneself for buying it. I agree though that these bundles were a bad idea.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Shady wrote:

So from your reply,I can only assume that you believe that everyone who questions the issue of benefits is a whinger.

Try looking outside of the box Ben.We're not all whingers & we actually care about our economy & those who genuinely deserve benefits.

But you don't think like that Ben as you are a typical sterotyper.

Actually I completely agree that benefits cheating needs to be policed and that economic matters are important. But that's not what I see from the whingers. I see resentment, I see people acting like every cheater discovered is a typical example of the average benefits recipient, etc. And a lot of nasty terms that show how low regard they hold recipients in in the first place. It's all over the place, Shady; you'd have to be blind not to recognize it for the hate and bigotry that it is.

Agree completely with the above.

I don't understand why people seem to automatically assume people who receive benefits are cheating the system.Only 1% of benefit claimants are frauds,that was the figure released by the government.

Meaning 99& of benefit claimants are genuine and entitled to that benefit.So where does all the hositlity come from?Surely there is alot worse going on in the world??

Ben_Reilly wrote:Aren't food banks charities who want to help the needy? I can't understand being in the way of something like that. It just sounds cruel.

As for the OP question, I think my parents were on food stamps for a month or two when I was a kid. I think a lot of people who are so resentful of the small amount of money paid to poor people to help them out tend to forget that most of the beneficiaries are children. Either that, or the resentful people are just sociopaths who don't care whether people live or starve.

I was being ironic r.e the food banks because I thought the article Andy once provided about people stealing from food banks was pathetic (i.e trying to demonise people in poverty)

I don't really think poor people are peasants,that's the sort of degrading terminology I would expect hard line RW'S to use hence why I used it but maybe the irony didn't come across..!  

Also some people sometimes do come across as they actually don't care if other people live or die and it disturbs me.

Yes your taxes pay for other people's benefits big bloody deal.My mother and partner don't seem to begrudge doing it,both in full time work,never once heard them moan about 'scroungers'.

It's all odd.

Being entitled to something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing. Besides, this "entitlement" seems to have a very loose meaning sometimes.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Actually I completely agree that benefits cheating needs to be policed and that economic matters are important. But that's not what I see from the whingers. I see resentment, I see people acting like every cheater discovered is a typical example of the average benefits recipient, etc. And a lot of nasty terms that show how low regard they hold recipients in in the first place. It's all over the place, Shady; you'd have to be blind not to recognize it for the hate and bigotry that it is.

Agree completely with the above.

I don't understand why people seem to automatically assume people who receive benefits are cheating the system.Only 1% of benefit claimants are frauds,that was the figure released by the government.

Meaning 99& of benefit claimants are genuine and entitled to that benefit.So where does all the hositlity come from?Surely there is alot worse going on in the world??

Mostly it's fanned by the RW media, scum rags like the Daily Mail etc and the dumb RW readers lap it up.

I think the RW media use it as a divide to rule tactic, because if the 'minions' are arguing amongst themselves, they are less likely to blame the real culprits for the countries problems ie the rich elite, government and banks etc.    

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fabulous - thank you.

Could it not be said though that many people were borrowing beyond their means so that's their own fault. I mean, nobody made them take out these mortgages did they? That also meant that house prices went up.

There's some merit to that argument, but I still think that the banks themselves, who do this for a living and know way more about it than the average borrower, have to take the ultimate responsibility when all's said and done. They certainly played games with people's livelihood.

I think this is where we differ on many issues. I think that people know very well when they are borrowing too much, and they have a responsibility to themselves to not do so rather than blame anyone else. It's like blaming a shop for selling chocolate rather than blaming oneself for buying it. I agree though that these bundles were a bad idea.

Big difference, though -- the chocolate maker doesn't risk anything by selling people chocolate. The bank takes on a risk every time it makes a loan, and must exercise good judgement when doing so in order to not put itself in financial jeopardy.

Catman wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Agree completely with the above.

I don't understand why people seem to automatically assume people who receive benefits are cheating the system.Only 1% of benefit claimants are frauds,that was the figure released by the government.

Meaning 99& of benefit claimants are genuine and entitled to that benefit.So where does all the hositlity come from?Surely there is alot worse going on in the world??

Mostly it's fanned by the RW media, scum rags like the Daily Mail etc and the dumb RW readers lap it up.

I think the RW media use it as a divide to rule tactic, because if the 'minions' are arguing amongst themselves, they are less likely to blame the real culprits for the countries problems ie the rich elite, government and banks etc.    

I say what you just said all the time lol    

The RW media knew what they were doing with White Dee didn't they.They used her as the poster woman for EVERYONE on benefits so the begrudgers were only too happy to lap it up and take her existence as confirmation of their own twisted viewpoint.And,as you correctly state,the arguing amongst the proles continues while the men upstairs get on with paying themselves big fat bonuses they don't deserve.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think this is where we differ on many issues. I think that people know very well when they are borrowing too much, and they have a responsibility to themselves to not do so rather than blame anyone else. It's like blaming a shop for selling chocolate rather than blaming oneself for buying it. I agree though that these bundles were a bad idea.

Big difference, though -- the chocolate maker doesn't risk anything by selling people chocolate. The bank takes on a risk every time it makes a loan, and must exercise good judgement when doing so in order to not put itself in financial jeopardy.

Yes, but they're not forcing people to take out these loans. Anyone with any sense would know what they can afford or not.

BigAndy9 wrote:24th April 2014

How long for?

What was the reason you first went on them?

No, I have always been fortunate enough to have a job and haven't been ill long term.  I've done everything from picking beans in the fields before I was a teenager to having a paper round, working in a shop, serving petrol and checking oil, water and tyre pressures to cooking in a pub and that was all before I was 18!  Lucky to have survived all the cuts and worked for the same Company for 24 years next month.

No job is a "forever job" these days and that is what the benefit system is there for and those who cannot work due to ill health.

I can understand why people get frustrated with the system for many reasons.

People who have had children will have drawn child benefit so the answer is most people probably have been in receipt of benefits.

Irn Bru wrote:People who have had children will have drawn child benefit so the answer is most people probably have been in receipt of benefits.

True I guess but no little ones for me Irn x

BigAndy9 wrote:It's awful Tess.

Our system was turned completely upside down under the Labour government.

The welfare bill always goes up under the Tories and that woman in your avatar was one of the biggest offenders. She even used huge chunks of the oil revenues to help pay for it.

FluffyBunny wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:It's awful Tess.

Our system was turned completely upside down under the Labour government.

Aren't you happy then that the Tories have cut benefits then?

The Universal credit system is a shambles apparently and people can no longer afford to feed their children so have to resort to food banks.I believe it was you that linked that newspaper article saying that hungry people were stealing food from said food banks,the peasants.

So the divide between rich and poor has never been wider and the average family is over one thousand ,seven hundred pounds a year worse off.Benefits ate slashed,families going to food banks.

A Britain to be proud of I'm sure.

I don't believe benefits have been cut Fluffy.

BigAndy9 wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Aren't you happy then that the Tories have cut benefits then?

The Universal credit system is a shambles apparently and people can no longer afford to feed their children so have to resort to food banks.I believe it was you that linked that newspaper article saying that hungry people were stealing food from said food banks,the peasants.

So the divide between rich and poor has never been wider and the average family is over one thousand ,seven hundred pounds a year worse off.Benefits ate slashed,families going to food banks.

A Britain to be proud of I'm sure.

I don't believe benefits have been cut Fluffy.

You're an idiot then.....Most of us knew that anyway though.

there is a greater point to be had here...

nowadays, by far the greatest cost to the benefit budget is "tax credits" these are paid to people who have jobs, because their empoyers are allowed to pay such shit wages...effectively "exploitation"

In doing so the govt (and therfore the tax payer) is effectively "subsidising" industry by paying part of its wage bill.

this situation has come about as deliberate policy of the R/W

The R/W effectively destroyed our manufacturing base (then blamed the unions)
The R/W pulled the plug on overt "subsidising " of "nationalised" industry (again blaming the unions)
The R/W then proceeded to act all surprised when the newly "liberated" industries like energy supply started making excess profits at the expense of the consumer
The R/W deliberately set out to create a VAST pool of unemployed
The R/W then set about demonising them ...(divide and rule tactics)
The R/W Used and still use this "pool" of unemployed to drive down wages, and conditions
effectively destroying the "market balance" of jobs vs pay

Like it or not  MOST people (that is the majority) were better of in may ways in the days of powerful unions, when folks could literally tell an employer to bugger of...walk out the door ...down the road, and get another job...that day...with another employer.....
where if an employer DIDNT give a decent wage rise each year...all the staff just moved to the company up the road that did.......OR their union would enforce a wage rise on the employer via strike action.....

But the R/W didnt like that...the peasants were "out of control"  

so they did what they did.....and ended up subsidising industry via the "back door"....
BUT now of course they can tell the other idiot R/W believers that its all the fault of the mythological "scrounger"

And whatever you all say & no matter how you dress it up or diguise it....Millions are being wasted on benefits for those who shouldn't be claiming them.

Shady wrote:And whatever you all say & no matter how you dress it up or diguise it....Millions are being wasted on benefits for those who shouldn't be claiming them.

And you wont get any argument from me shady.....except

firstly just how significant in terms of govt expenditure is that amount....compared say to the LOSS caused be (especially corporate) tax fraud?

secondly considering my above post ...what did the powers that be THINK the end result of their actions would be?

thirdly, however you dress it up or attempt to disguise it...there are 8 people for every job SO..even if we filled every single vacancy going....we would still be left with the bulk of claimants, right or wrong...where do we go from there???

the problem is NOT just about claimants...sucessive govt of all shades has FAILED the people of this country, It is the DUTY of govt to protect its people...and THAT includes ensuring that there is sufficient work OR alternatively sufficient funds available for adequate social payments...

we need wholesale industrial rebuilding...not a few 100 jobs here and there but 10's of thousands and THAT means state subsidised (if necessary) industry, with LIVING wages not the mockery that "minimum" wages represents... (if minimum wage was sufficient there would be no need for tax credits???)

the whole system and the whole idea is wrong and failing shady, yes there are a good number who "should not be on benefits"....BUT......given that we can only supply 1 in 8 with a job AT BEST.....what are we going to do with the other 7??????????

 

INCOMPETENT management, unviable businesses, lack of planning, and poor positioning will always inevitably lead to failing businesses...

IRREGARDLESS of a country's welfare system..