₦airaland Forum

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-l91O9VxN0=1"[/flash]

Na the thing wey i dey talk since be this.

How about the Savings and Loans Crisis in the late Eighties. . . . . . .

People wey dey save their little nest eggs in no frills thrift accounts
came close to losing their little things afte Wall Street bond kings
conned the managers of these outfits into colossal bond bets.

So there should be no recourse for these little savers to help them recover their little things.

I remember it was lax government regulation that allowed the con in the first place

Kobojunkie:
I am not for the Brits coming back at all. I do not see the reasoning in that logic at all. I do know that it is time for us to quit blaming the brits for our issues. I am glad you also note yourself that Nigeria had almost had 20 years of good economy until the 80's when we took a nose dive into the mud of our own. I remember the people voted Shagari in back then. The Brits did not have much to do with that decision and so blaming the brits for the commotion that came after that is illogical.

Hausa no dey vote jo. . . . .

Burutanchi don spoil their head. . . . . .

e be like say una don chop all those Financial adviser sales pitch well well,

you are almost qualified for the job.

Anyway ooo. . .there was a time when it was fashionable to argue against government intervention
in alleviating population discomfort even when it was literally causing hunger in Europe. . . .

It led to the emergence of Fascism.

Kobojunkie:
I actually prefer a state without a welfare safety net than one that offers "Free Money" to people who are undeserving at the expense of those who do not deserve to be ripped off for paying taxes. Welfare is good is well managed. I would go with the Nigerian model anyday than I would the current American welfare model and you can imagine how I cringe at the thought of Universal HealthCare which to me, is pushing the current welfare problems to mega proportions. Who gets to pay more to support it?? Those of us who work for a living. I don't mind working hard in my youth and saving up to take care of situation when I am older.

but say your savings are invested in equities and they tank in value come close to retirement time. . .

In that situation e no good make government intervene. . . .if such misfortune were to befall me. . .I would sure vote for a govt. that would help.

but you should be rest assured that when your own time for retirement comes

you will have something to rely on. . . .

I shudder to think of a state without any welfare safety net. . . .Sounds too much like Naija

You guys make it sound like all this tax rises na welfare e dey go. . . .

People on welfare. . . . . .double wahala for deadi bodi ooo

well however it is. . . .when the going gets tough

We will be able to rely on his oratory to soothe the financial wounds

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=116574.msg2010831#msg2010831 date=1204330462]@doyin13,
I have nothing against subsidising food because it is essential to a nation's security. The nation's security is virtually the most important aspect of a govt job. The social welfare you are requesting is totally against capitalism.

I had a tenant on section 8. The govt pays $1,200 for her rent every month. She gets food stamps and a cheque form the govt every month and I know there is absolutely nothing wrong with this woman. She is healthy but lazy. Infact, she intentionally works less every time so as to avoid getting kicked off the benefits. There is absolutely no incentives to work because the more you do, the more you are taxed. And if you do not work, Uncle Sam will deprive those who do to pay you. So guess what she does? This is what socialism encourages.

Our people come here and work 2 to 3 jobs to get ahead, yet people here sit down on their behinds and milk those who do to the last penny. This is what socialism encourages.[/quote]I am aware social welfare schemes are prone to abuse. . . . . .but it doesn't mean we should throw the baby with the water na. . . .

the thing is unfettered capitalism will leave a lot of people in the lurch without any recourse. I would rather a sacrifice 1 or 2% growth
at the expense of making sure that the most vulnerable people in our society get help when they need it.

National Security spending is just as prone to flights of fancy or hare brained escapades. . . .the hundreds of billions spent on
the war in Iraq sure look wasted now with hindsight, does it not.

4 Play:
Before Thatcher,when you wanted a phone line,it was a Govt enterprise that was responsible-BT.If you wanted to travel,you almost always used a Govt airline-BA.If you went to fill up your car with fuel,you bought from a Govt owned outlet often run by BP. If you think life was better in those days,fair enough.

What is clear is that by any measure,living standards and general income levels rose remarkably under Thatcher.If you want to live in era when the unions were always on strike-refuse littered the streets-you obviously don't appreciate how bad it used to be.

That is why the Brits kept the Tories in power for 18 years.Nobody want to go back to the late 70s when Britain had to go cap in hand to beg the IMF for money

Well funny how her party is shaped more in the image of New Labour rather than on a not too distant Thatcherite era

How many times I wonder do the current crop of Tory leaders invoke the legacy which she bequeath.

The 80's are now considered the era of City Yuppy excess, lax FSA regulation, where coporate raiders made out like
highway bandits and the current Labour government has had to spend through its nose to make up for the shortfall
in investments in education, the health service, railways, housing etc.

The irony is. . .despite all the cutbacks- - -- - - - - - -she spent more than the Governments that came before her Go Figure

and don't equate Militant Unionism with social democracy.

James Callaghan's weaknesses as a leader and his lack of cahoonies in fighting the unions should not be seen
as a weakness of social democracy

4 Play:
With regards to the credit crunch,nothing has to be done by the Govt.If the Govt bails out the debtors it rewards both them and their creditors for their bad judgment which increases this risk of future re-occurrence because many would always expect the Govt to bail them out in the event of a crash.

But this is the koko. . . .

Which Government has the strength of character to sit out a bust and do nothing while voters see their homes foreclosed or their livelihoods lost
abroad.

Politicians are not in the business of losing elections. . . .whether of the GOP or Democrat kind

And come to think of it. . . .Tayo I would hope those farm subsidies are amongst the social programs you would like to see scratched and not
just social programs that redistribute to the poor and lazy. Its funny how such like are not protested as much as inner city social welfare

So because Exxon pays that much in taxes. . . .we should not condemn them
if they go wrong. . . .

Even that Scion of Conservative America, Bill O'Reilly has cried wolf over the punishment which higher gas prices
have wreaked on the ordinary folks while they are making record setting profits.

4 Play:
You are missing the point when you keep talking of spending.Some politicians are prepared to spend more than others.Of course,Govt must spend money,how else will it function? But there are certain limits as to how much the Govt should spend at any given time or for what purposes.

Hmmm. . . .what they are willing to do is a lot different than what they actually do

Thatcher made her Cabinet read Hayek's tome but her government largely went the way of those before hers.

She spent money and alas on fewer social programmes. . . .The rich got richer, investments in Public services suffered despite all the
privatisations and people generally felt worse off.

His plan is undoubtedly populist. . . .

but I am increasingly wary of this connect between lesser taxes and availaibility of capital.

So what say you 4play about solutions to the present Credit Crunch. . . . . .Reduce taxes further to
so that the Rich would feel more inclined to release their capital. . . .

Of course that is disastrous. , . . .Sentiments ultimately determine economic performance.

While tax reduction might leave some people undoubtedly feeling a bit wealthier, if there is a prevailing sense
of uncertainty, parting with their cash will be the last thing on their mind. . . .

In addition. . . .people are willing to part with more cash as taxes as long as they feel economic prospects are steady.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=116574.msg2010736#msg2010736 date=1204325636]@doyin13,
That is becuase the social programs in most cases are nothing but wealth redistribution. Social programs should be left in the hands of private organisations like Red Cross. People should give to others based on what their conscience allows them and not otherwise. The Government should focuse on governance, law, order, security and justice. The Robinhood spirit of taking from the hard working rich to sustain the many times, lazy poor should not be allowed to take root.[/quote]I don't knw what kind of laissez faire Valhalla you want your government to be.

Governments want to leave legacies. . .it is a non academic generalisation but i contend a historical truism.

Too many egos involved.

Thus they will spend your money anyway. . . .

Now I do not see what moral argument or any argument whatsoever makes spending on national security
superior to the Robin Hood analogy you described

It will always be a question of emphasis regarding how your money is spent cause only a suicidal government
will decide to erase more than a few social programs.

But the point I am trying to make is. . . .your money will be spent by the government regardless whether its the GOP
or Ralph Nader in power

But what I don't understand is why someone like Reagan is not indicted in the same
manner for his errant spending.

it seems overblown expenditures on 'nationalistic' schemes are okay
but for social programs, there are a no-no.

4 Play:
@Tayo-D

Obama's spending plans will add an extra $800bn to the FG's spending.Some guy at the WSJ did the maths on Obama's spending plans:It will add up to a '39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.'

That is what I don't understand with you libertarians. . . . . .

If you imagine that there is a government out there that would not spend, then you are naive.

Governments love to spend. . . .it is the method by which they raise their spending money that differs.

Even the GOP legend Reagan spent more than most.


Small Government is a fallacy. . . .Jeez

And there i was thinking Minnesota was Liberal. . . . .

You really should be living in Mississippi man

na who wowo with you. . . .

Segzy l'omo

heheheheh. . . .your own no like the camera at all

lights on or off

His middle name is alrite jare. . ,

At least its not Fatai or Mutiu

Oh. . . .there is a change of agenda.

Well it stays for shizee. . .

Don't like it- - - - - - - -Bite me

@D-Reloaded

So you jus believe the boy like that


So all that experience written on your visage is for nought. . . .

You sure say you never carry three pikin so. . . .I fit still marry you sha

hehehehehe. . . .i hope you break a leg

threads like this make Sabisabi a nairaland necessity.

a collage of already seen pics.

It is so obvious that there would be more to Obama's success than the usual if he were to suceed.

Brother is black or non-white rather and we have to get used to it.

As long as he doesn't run the ship aground then he will have done fine as President.

I have become weary of the yardsticks by which people measure the performance of Presidents,

They say Clinton was a good President. . . . .but on what basis. Getting his phallus sucked at his place of work
Or should we judge Bush on his economic success(which has unravelled the past few months anyway)
or the consequences of a disastrous war.

Fact is being a success as Leader depends as much on luck as it does on talent.


@Jesoul

I do not necessarily agree that the interests of blacks and whites are mutually exclusive.
There is a growing black middle class of which you are a member and I am sure your interests
are fairly similar to those of a fellow white middle class worker like yourself.

The interests blacks have in Obama are non-economic and there will be satisfied simply by him succeeding in the elections.

They call Bill Clinton the first black President. . . .but I am yet to see any evidence that he affected the lot of blacks in any
direct manner. He could talk black, I think, something I am sure Obama will do even more successfuly.


@Trevor Phillips

I think it is a bit quixotic to imagine some future post racial future where racial lines are blurred or largely erased

Racial lines will always be present as long as we have different colours. Some conflicts are simply irresolvable.

The best we can do is manage our differences and make the best out of what is prolly an eternal, most times peaceful,
sometimes violent situation. Conflict management will be aided by compromises and if that includes electing a black
President then its all good.

So for him to now say the election wlll hinder our progress towards such a nirvana is in my own opinion self defeating

na rings person go chop. . . .

some people seem to think this is Lord of the Rings the Movie

Shiooo

morenike09:
@doyin
you seriously need to stop taking those pic on your profile. seriously

iwo omode yi. . . .pada leyin mi jo

ok i have comot it. . . .

D-reloaded baby. . . .

We could talk about a lot more than music don't you think

4Him:
stop making noise. My parents went to SU while in school and turned out fantastic.
Because you were lucky to escape with a life of debauchery is not an excuse for u to thrash the lives of others.

hahahahahahaha . . . . . . . . .OMG.

David na wa for you.

Too much opinion