# brown cash 2 banks



## [email protected] (Mar 5, 2007)

as news reports say Gorden brown pumping more of tax payers cash into banks , But we have not seen any off it  . Been speaking to a few company owners and bank are now pulling the plug on over drafts with business , so might be the reason so many are going into admin .. 

what are your thoughts :thumb:

andy


----------



## Nickos (Apr 27, 2006)

The days of Lending are over. Browns just wasting billions and billions of tax payers cash that will take generations to repay. It's already 17k national debt for each and every person and new born each day and RISING!

I say let it take its coarse, nationalise where nessacary but do not lend what they dont have!!!! I don't lend people money off my credit card, so why should banks/government do the same?


----------



## petenaud (Feb 17, 2008)

Brown is an A$$4ole

Banks are still paying ceo's stupid bonus amount

Sack the lot or nationalise and get the money going to where it should be


----------



## M4D YN (Nov 24, 2007)

petenaud said:


> Brown is an A$$4ole
> 
> Banks are still paying ceo's stupid bonus amount
> 
> Sack the lot or nationalise and get the money going to where it should be


get rid of him  scum


----------



## Orca (Apr 16, 2007)

I'm very much in favour of nationalisation ... the problem with "the Party" is that the _third way_ politics that were introduced at the beginning of New Labour cannot accommodate such a left wing standing. These central Parties with no great conviction are really hard to come to terms with - I like the old days when the Tories were actually right-wing and Labour left-wing; in the middle, they're both the same and a change in Government will be as bland.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

talk about a series of crap decisions:

1. pump £300bn of OUR money into banks who do nothing to support business or personal lending

2. cut VAT using OUR money, with no benefit to anyone :wall:

Get rid of him and the current government and get in an apolitical body that understands what the help needs to be done


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

he needs gone! what a waste of time he is!


----------



## KevJM (Jul 8, 2008)

What really annoys me is that they cannot find money for essential services that would benefit the people of this country for example cut 8 million here and ten million there in fact my wife is currently serving her notice of redundancy due to these cutbacks but when the bankers s*unk billions down the pan we all pay to bail them out.


----------



## mattsbmw (Jul 20, 2008)

This extra money being pumped into the banks should be have conditions attached that it MUST be used to lend to general public / companies to get money flowing.


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

I hate Brown with a passion but its better for us to put money into the banks rather than let the system collapse!

My mortgage is with RBS and if they went under, I'd be in the ****!

Also what people dont realise is that its not just giving the banks £xxx the government is actually buying into the bank, therefore owning most of it. They're purchases (after a fashion), not donations.


----------



## KevJM (Jul 8, 2008)

ardandy said:


> I hate Brown with a passion but its better for us to put money into the banks rather than let the system collapse!
> 
> My mortgage is with RBS and if they went under, I'd be in the ****!
> 
> Also what people dont realise is that its not just giving the banks £xxx the government is actually buying into the bank, therefore owning most of it. They're purchases (after a fashion), not donations.


I don't honestly believe that the government will get all of this money back most will be written off so a lot of it will be a kind donation


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

KevJM said:


> I don't honestly believe that the government will get all of this money back most will be written off so a lot of it will be a kind donation


Surely with the stock market so low, now is a brilliant time to but shares in a bank if you are making sure that it won't go under?

When the market rises, the govt can take royalties and/or sell them at a higher price than they bought them for.

It's still a gamble though.


----------



## Nickos (Apr 27, 2006)

Gruffs said:


> Surely with the stock market so low, now is a brilliant time to but shares in a bank if you are making sure that it won't go under?
> 
> When the market rises, the govt can take royalties and/or sell them at a higher price than they bought them for.
> 
> It's still a gamble though.


I don't see this being over for at least 12-24 months. We're talking 100's of billions now with no sign of any let up or rays of light.

Fact is some banks will fold, others will be nationalised. The only 2 that seem to have had any sense were HSBC and santander who remain largely unaffected in comparison to the rest.

Look at this way:

Bank has Deposits of 100 billion
Bank has Lent 200 billion

Bank is left with 100billion shortfall meaning its effectively worthless.

SHOULD HAVE NEVER LENT MORE THAN DEPOSITED! FACT. GREED, SHAREHOLDERS AND FAT CATS.

didn't help that brown based his whole economy on booming house prices and financial institutions.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Bigpikle said:


> talk about a series of crap decisions:
> 
> 1. pump £300bn of OUR money into banks who do nothing to support business or personal lending
> 
> ...


Its like we gave the banks £300 Billion to fill a hole, they emptied it into their financial black hole yet it didn't reach the top, it didn't even reach half way! It just fell even further down into a bigger hole!


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

What is really worrying is that the IMF and other respected financial organizations all say that the UK is going to be hit hardest of all the industrialized nations and that what is being done is wrong.

The other - perhaps even more important - point is that Brown can continue with this reckless course of action because he knows full well that he and his cronies don't have a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected so, when it comes to raising taxes and interest rates to pay for this, and/or write tens of billions off, that it will be the Tories (or Lib Dems - maybe) that will have to do so, plus it will be they who will also have to publish the final accounts for the Olympics which I am certain will cost us dear despite NuLab's assertions that it will, at worst, break even/be revenue neutral and the Labour Opposition will be gloating about how the Tories ruined the economy and how Labour would have done a better job if they'd be re-elected etc. In other words, he's playing politics with our money.


----------



## Rich @ PB (Oct 26, 2005)

And bye bye again goes the pound against the dollar...


----------



## 1animal1 (Aug 20, 2008)

I havent read all the posts so apologies if some of this has already been said.... im not a fan of G brown either.... 

I think its a rock and a hard place for the government, no matter what they do will impact the public, if the banks arent rescued then they will most likely faulter on their debts (which is their own fault) which would almost certainly result in collapse, this would be worse for us than piling the money in to save them...what i hope now is that the government reaps the benefits for our investment to make it worth while and impose what ever they need to create a sterile banking environment so that they cant hang themselves again..... we cant really complain as if you've taken advantage of the previous cheaper mortgage rates pre 2007, then you've had a hand in this yourself taking benefit from the banks actions..like it or not.... fact is the banks are to blame as we know and they should be penalised accordingly but without recourse to the public,,,,,however, pumping money into them is the only option to stop them going under IMO...if public money wasnt used then god knows what the consequences to the economy would be, id guess it wouldnt be pretty (even more so than now)

tim


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

No one seems to be blaming the idiots who got a 100%+ mortgage when they couldn't afford it! Then default on payments! They have to take some blame!


----------



## 1animal1 (Aug 20, 2008)

thing is we take what we can get, yes they are to blame to a point but if the bank was emptying the vaults offering free money would you not try and be there to grab some...or would you sit back and say 'well im not going to touch this cos i know its not right for the bank/economy' - we are all to blame at some point and at differing levels, the 100%+ mortgages were a way of takng advantage and buying these homes thatv were increasing in value daily....nobody was to know that the final figure would be a synthetic one - hind sight would be amazing - if they couldnt afford it they have got what they deserve, however these arent the absolute reasons, the banks lent money to people in general, money that wasnt theirs to lend (lending lent money) which is where the problem lies


----------



## ardandy (Aug 18, 2006)

1animal1 said:


> thing is we take what we can get, yes they are to blame to a point but if the bank was emptying the vaults offering free money would you not try


I wouldn't call a mortgage 'free money'. It's still a mortgage.

What your house is worth is irrelevant (if your not moving) as long as you can afford the payments. If you can't afford the payments then even if the house is worth more it doesn't make it any more affordable.

I always based it on 1.5 wage as if someone loses a job (or gets preggers) then you need to plan for that.

The banks only leant the money to people who couldn't afford it because they knew the house would be worth more than the mortgage and they'd recover their costs! (which now is not the case!)

At the end of the day, ignorance of what YOU can/can't afford is no excuse!


----------



## 1animal1 (Aug 20, 2008)

na my point with the 'free money' was aimed at the fact that if you give someone the opportunity to buy a house when they havent previously been able to do so...just like what the 100% morts gave

I was making the point of the houses worth because this emphasises why people wanted to own their own house when they couldnt afford it...(by afford it i mean couldnt afford a deposit)
again something the 100% mortgages changed

Unsure what the standard wage specifics are but i know when i worked for HSBC years ago they used 60% of income after liabilities, this was considered the best anyone could offer at that time (approx 2002ish)

...and yep they lent the money to these people because the increase in values seriously reduced the risk profile of lending to the 100% mort people, you wouldnt lend money if you didnt have some collateral...however as we know they didnt compensate for the over values that were happening in the whole of 2007 and maybe before (this is the negative eq problem which causes people to stop moving house as often more than bad debt). A bi-product is that they relaxed income multiples slightly which let a few people through the net that shouldnt have been....although it really is a tiny reason behind whats happening today in the economy, yes bad morts are rising but you could cover that with the amount of redundencies across the UK

What your saying is more in keeping with the US situation, they are the ones to be held accountable regarding toxic debt, the UK was hardly touched by this....everything thats gone on cannot be blamed on unaffordability, you are exploring just the tip of the ice berg here


----------



## IVSPAUL (Dec 15, 2007)

ardandy said:


> No one seems to be blaming the idiots who got a 100%+ mortgage when they couldn't afford it! Then default on payments! They have to take some blame!


Quite right no one told them to borrow money they couldnt aford


----------

