Labour hid 1.5 BILLION ACC shortfall - Ministerial inquiry

[ManDownUnder]

Now Key is going to use taxpayer money to underwrite their buisness loans.

Now go back to sleep.

WHAT???? THAT BASTARD IS USING OUR MONEY TO UNDERWRITE LOANS THAT PROTECT OUR JOBS?????

Doesn't he know he's there for his own personal gain?

[ManDownUnder]

We once had our own bank but not now. It got flogged off. Key claims that he is one of the good ol' boys from working class stock and is concerned about his roots. He's pissing on them but they have not noticed yet. Just try having a slash on ya tomato plants. Won't die straight away but once the wilt starts it's too late.

Skyryder

They must be right wing - being red I guess. Try taking a wizz under anything citrous - it fucken loves it.

Bad example dude.

[MSTRS:Me]

WHAT???? THAT BASTARD IS USING OUR MONEY TO UNDERWRITE LOANS THAT PROTECT OUR JOBS?????

Doesn't he know he's there for his own personal gain?

Disgusting, isn't it? Who would have thought that a politician would actually attempt something that might be for the good of all. And being because of outside causes, he can't even be suspected of doing this as part of a secret agenda.

[Skyryder]

Well Key must be listening to me and watching KB

So come on guys lets hear a call from you lot about this $70 mill cock up that the Nats signed with our money as a gurantee.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10559878


Skyryder

[Mully]

Well Key must be listening to me and watching KB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah..._(self-concept)

"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

So come on guys lets hear a call from you lot about this $70 mill cock up that the Nats signed with our money as a gurantee.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10559878

Yep, that was a bit of a cock-up. This, however is interesting:
"In this case Mascot have gone into receivership so we need to learn from this example how to make sure that we minimise the risks to the taxpayer that institutions that come along looking for the guarantee in the future may not be viable."
(That's a quote from Bill English, John Key's partner in fur seal clubbing). Admitting that the government made a mistake and they should learn from it. Unheard of in politics for the last decade in NZ.

[marty]

It's just part of the Westminster system that we live under.

r

As opposed to the excellent system they have in Zimbabwe, or even the Federal Republic system shared by some countries.....

I know what my choice is

[Skyryder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah..._(self-concept)

"He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy"



Yep, that was a bit of a cock-up. This, however is interesting:
"In this case Mascot have gone into receivership so we need to learn from this example how to make sure that we minimise the risks to the taxpayer that institutions that come along looking for the guarantee in the future may not be viable."
(That's a quote from Bill English, John Key's partner in fur seal clubbing). Admitting that the government made a mistake and they should learn from it. Unheard of in politics for the last decade in NZ.

Still 70 mill of our money down the gurgler. So is Key or English asking for heads. Nope. Anyone here asking for heads?? Seven weeks after signing the deal Mascot turn to custard Someone got it wrong. But all we hear from English sorry chaps we will just have to better next time. Not his money but ours.

Skyryder


Skyryder

[Swoop]

Jesus this is unfucking believable. You still think this job summit is about saving jobs.
Waffle,waffle.
And you seriously think the Govt is working for the populace. Like fuck they are.

Yup. The concept has passed over your head. Consultation with people who "might" have a few ideas on alleviating the problems of the economy.
You lefties are only happy when Stalin tells you what you really want.
Keep the red flag flying.

[SPman]

Could this have something to do with it.....Merril Lynch reporting in July of last year.........

...a Merrill Lynch broker's report tipped Australian insurers to make a $200 million killing if National went ahead with an "informal" plan to privatise ACC.
Insurance companies expect National to privatise ACC, but their would-be customers, the business community, are surprisingly unenthusiastic.
Insurance Council chief executive Chris Ryan said there was an appetite among insurers to re-enter the workplace accident compensation market.
The Merrill Lynch report suggests privatisation could unlock $2.1 billion in new premium income. Mr Key once worked for Merrill Lynch. Prime candidates for privatisation were the workers' compensation and motor accident accounts.

There is trouble at ' mill, so, we know how this goes." First, they talk down a publicly-owned asset. Then they make it suck. Then they offer privatisation as a way of "fixing" the problem they have created. The end result in this case will be reduced entitlements, higher costs to both individuals and society due to the need to make a profit, and the diversion of a public income stream into the private pockets of National's insurance-industry donors."

and from I S

The government today released the results of its inquiry into whether the shortfall in ACC funding should have been disclosed in the Pre-Election Fiscal Update. The report [PDF] concludes that it should have, as while it was not under active consideration by Ministers, the costs arose from statutory obligations and so were reasonably certain. But while Bill English's press release accuses former Finance Minister Michael Cullen and former ACC Minister Maryann Street of "hiding" the shortfall, the report itself does nothing of the sort. Instead, it concludes that the non-disclosure was primarily attributable to:

Treasury’s interpretation of the PFA requirements related to the inclusion of Fiscal Risks in the economic and fiscal forecasts contained in the PREFU that put onus on the fact that Cabinet was yet to make decisions on adjustments to appropriations necessary to fund the Non-earners’ Account rather than the policy decisions already made by Government and embodied in statute, regulation, and requirements communicated to the ACC regarding its management and funding of the Non-earners’ Account and the Treatment Injury Account that resulted in the funding shortfall.

[SPman]

Disgusting, isn't it? Who would have thought that a politician would actually attempt something that might be for the good of all. And being because of outside causes, he can't even be suspected of doing this as part of a secret agenda.

"Finance companies engage in risky lending, e.g. to property developers, or (at the riskier end of the scale) providing consumer credit to people buying cars. Borrowers pay a premium for that risk, and this is passed on to investors in the form of high returns on their investment. But now when things go sour, the taxpayer picks up the tab. Not just for their initial investment (which would be bad enough) - but also for their interest! It is one thing to help people through a recession; that's what the state is for. But this is the outright privatisation of profit and socialisation of losses. And I really don't see why we should be paying for that." I.S.

[MSTRS:Me]

Fair enough. BUT what any 'bail out' or underwriting proposal seeks to do is to protect the investors. If that protects the company/bank/lending institution...can't be helped. But be sure that it won't be free money for them. Same thing for employers. The downstream effects of a failure are just too big to ignore.

[SPman]

Fair enough. BUT what any 'bail out' or underwriting proposal seeks to do is to protect the investors..

Fair enough - but most investors went in with dreams of easy money and no risk - contrary to all good sense - and then scream when they're burnt!
Didn't anybody learn anything from the 80's......

[MSTRS:Me]

Fair enough - but most investors went in with dreams of easy money and no risk - contrary to all good sense - and then scream when they're burnt!
Didn't anybody learn anything from the 80's......

Some are like that for sure. Fuck'em eh? But what about your parents...sold the family home for 500,000 - bought a smaller unit for 250,000 - put the rest into Mascot (say) to give them security over and above their state pension (or a bit of play money to tour the world when their investment matures)...or to leave their family something meaningful in their will/s.

[Patrick]

Cullen - So he either hid it - or he is incompetent.

Take your pick - Im going with both.

I think its because he is a Labour Supporter myself....

[SPman]

That is the trouble of course - a lot of investors get pulled in with assurances of secure assets and fool proof, iron clad guarantees, when there is, of course, no such thing! Too many people still don't understand, that most of these "investment" companies are nothing other than a flash way of gambling - when they're on a roll, it's all hunky dory, but, when the dice turn sour, they can (and do) lose everything, and the sad part is, it's usually the little people, who can ill afford to lose anything, that get stung the worst.....