GreyLaw:


Yet your politicians are looting all the money through furniture repairs. You people are too docile and easily deceived. It's a shame.

You can make your point without abuse.

Also, furniture repairs cost about 70 billion. Before the subsidy went, we were spending 400 billion MONTHLY...note monthly...at least on it. Using the furniture money on subsidy would have lasted all of a week, if not less.

Infact, subsidy costs had gotten so bad this year that if we threw in the entire National Assembly budget of 228 billion in for subsides, it would have at best paid for two weeks worth. The problem with subsidy is that it is a monster...that needs twice as much food as it needed yesterday, and will need five times more than it needs now tomorrow.

And yes, I agree that our senators are greedy people, and that the National Assembly votes too much money to itself (it;s the way our democracy was set up, and the alternative is to hand power over finances for the National Assembly to the President, who would use it to make the NA even more of a rubber stamp...sigh).

But at the end, we are in a hard situation. Thanks to years of budget by loans and deficit...99% of our revenue goes to debt service...meaning we are paying for subsidy by loans. Back in 2012, which was the best time we could have removed it, and still had savings...we were still paying for it with revenue.

We should have removed the thing in 1993, and maybe you would have been a general manager of a private refinery by now.



We are between a rock and a hard place, so before you call me a government dupe, I should let you know that I have spent ten years worrying about this thing in my spare time, and all the conclusions I have lead to us having to remove subsidy. Because if we do not, we would end up running out of money , and that won't be funny. I don't like subsidy removal, it is a horrible thing, and I wish we could have some subsidy for the poor at least....but when we are paying for the thing with loans, and running huge deficits doing so..which have to be filled with more loans....sorry, but there we are.

If all the candidates, except Sowore , supported some form of subsidy removal, then something is up.

nairalanda1:


Yea, make fun

But the harsh truth is if we kept subsidy, we would have reached a point where it would have eaten our revenue, some of the borrowed money we have...leaving a deficit in next year's busget

Which would be funded by loans.

Plus, we are using 70% of our budget for loan service.

When it comes to this matter, we have two choices. We can keep subsidy, and run into serious problem in two years, or we can remove subsidy, suffer some hardship, but at least have things like more investment, more jobs, and some price reduction.

Yes, I hate high prices, but the alternative frightens me, a lot. Too too much.

I did not support GEJ, but I wish ,and back then I supported his subsidy removal in 2012. If he had not listened to Nigerians, by now we would have long since been over the worst.

Yes, keep the subsidy...till our deficit is larger than our revenue. And if you think we are suffering now, and we are, we would be in ten times worse state then.

At least you have finally dumped that your silly neutral lie and shown your APCHEAT colours 😄😄
Like nasri said these questions are irrelevant now
Enjoy😄

nairalanda1:



....

Keynesian vs Neoliberalism. If you have time, read about these two schools of capitalism.