Tories

[JackanorySFC]

I would like to massively disagree that just because you pay a lot of money to send your children to a "posh" school, it doesn't mean they have the best teachers.

Teachers in state schools actually have to be qualified teachers, for a start ...

 

"1. Do I need a teaching qualification to teach in a private school?

 

private schools are permitted to set their own requirements with regard to qualifications so, unlike state schools, a teaching qualification is not insisted upon. However, times are changing. While previously a private school might have been happy to appoint a teacher on the basis of their academic credentials alone, it is now more likely the case that they prefer teachers to be qualified and experienced."

 

In 2008 95.3% of Private School pupils achieved grades a*-c compared with 65.7% at State Schools.

 

http://www.isc.co.uk/FactsFigures_GCSEResults.htm

 

Qualified teachers or not they're doing something right.

[Stuntman Mike]

In 2008 95.3% of Private School pupils achieved grades a*-c compared with 65.7% at State Schools.

 

http://www.isc.co.uk/FactsFigures_GCSEResults.htm

 

Qualified teachers or not they're doing something right.

 

Don't forget to get in a lot of private schools, you still have to pass an exam and/or be interviewed by the school (such as King Edwards in Southampton is an 11+ exam entry only, and their results are amazing, unsurprisingly!)

[Kadeem Hardison]

In 2008 95.3% of Private School pupils achieved grades a*-c compared with 65.7% at State Schools.

 

http://www.isc.co.uk/FactsFigures_GCSEResults.htm

 

Qualified teachers or not they're doing something right.

 

:confused:

You understand that people have to pay to go to private school? People who go to private school generally have money......money to pay for books, computers, resouces, tutoring and so on. The background of people does, sadly, play a part in the level of education they get to. Small classes and the ability to throw out anyone they want (unlike state schools) helps even stupid rich children achieve when they go to private school. What is the greater surpirse is that gap isn't bigger.

[John Boy Saint]

In 2008 95.3% of Private School pupils achieved grades a*-c compared with 65.7% at State Schools.

 

http://www.isc.co.uk/FactsFigures_GCSEResults.htm

 

Qualified teachers or not they're doing something right.

 

Also most of the pupils come from homes where hard work is the norm, whereas state schools have a melange of pupils from those with natural ability to succeed to the numpties who think that mucking about in class is cool. Those in the middle get caught both ways, private schools preclude those that could not give a monkeys meaning those in the middle aspire to match those at the top.

 

 

Jeez what a thread.................. and there's me a wooden spoon salesman.

 

:-)

[Saint George]

Personally come from a Labour supporting family, however having made my own way in life and purely by working f*cking hard and wanting to better myself getting promoted a few times (and falling into the 40% tax band) I'm sick to death of the few bailing out the many. I'm not on super wages, but I don't begrudge people that are, personally I'm ambitious and I'd love to be in their position earning high 6 figures, as it means I can take my kids around the world, send them to the best schools and generally give my family financial security.

 

Why in this country are people so jealous of success? - not everyone, my group of mates all went to the same school and some are doing better than others but none think the world owes them a living and they all work hard. But there seems to be an undercurrent of resentment at anyone wanting to better themself or their family? I've got a good mate that works as a front office trader for JPM, he got a bonus of £200k last year, bought a apartment in Cannes with the money - but he starts work at 5am to get the Asain markets and doesn't finish 'til gone 9pm after the US is well under way, he made the company millions last year so deserves every penny.

 

My company imposed a pay freeze for fiscal 09/10, what ****es me off is Public Sector workers wanting pay increases and job security - something NO-ONE in the Private sector get, therefor I agree wholehartedly with Cameron freeezing pay for anyone on over £18k except for frontline armed forces - that's another thing the Labout Government have completely lost me on - the disgusting treatment of our armed forces, GB spent 35 seconds talking about them in this key note speech, a disgrace!

 

Brown has dithered his way through his unelected Premiership, the lack of vote on the Constitution was a clear cut lie (not saying I'd vot no, just wanted to be asked) and his farcical handling of the biggest poltical scandal this decade (expenses) - no-one can deny Cameron led the way in dealing with that quickly and decicively, oh and all you holier than thou socialists out there, for every Tory grandee claiming for a Duck house, there were 2 sly Labour Champagne socialist MP's claiming for dodgy second homes, hanging baskets and home shopping.

 

The Lib dems are not worth bothering about as they'll never get anywhere near.

 

Rant over.

 

Listen to this guys peeps....He gets it

[norwaysaint]

I've taught both private and state. The teachers aren't any better, they are pretty much the same, but the facilities and class sizes are usually better.

 

However the crucial difference in my experience is the parental involvement. Parents who pay tend to make damn sure their children are doing their homework and they follow up a lot of classwork at home in various ways. All parents should do this, but many either don't have time, or can be a bit lazy, letting kids play video games and watching TV, or giving them unmonitored internet access.

[JackanorySFC]

:confused:

You understand that people have to pay to go to private school? People who go to private school generally have money......money to pay for books, computers, resouces, tutoring and so on. The background of people does, sadly, play a part in the level of education they get to. Small classes and the ability to throw out anyone they want (unlike state schools) helps even stupid rich children achieve when they go to private school. What is the greater surpirse is that gap isn't bigger.

 

Of course I do, all the more reason for me to work harder and earn more money so my kids can go to a Private School and so I can afford them the books, Computer, sports equipment etc. I work in a job dealing with response statistics (exciting eh) and I'd say the gap between 94% and 66% is pretty damn significant!

 

Personally went to a State School (Wildern) and my Mum was a Head of Year in an inner city Southampton School for 20 years so nothing against them at all - as I've said before though, nothing wrong with bettering yourself and giving your kids the best possible chance in my optinion.

[Colinjb]

P

My company imposed a pay freeze for fiscal 09/10, what ****es me off is Public Sector workers wanting pay increases and job security - something NO-ONE in the Private sector get, therefor I agree wholehartedly with Cameron freeezing pay for anyone on over £18k except for frontline armed forces - that's another thing the Labout Government have completely lost me on - the disgusting treatment of our armed forces, GB spent 35 seconds talking about them in this key note speech, a disgrace!

 

The crucial paragraph. Having lived with the risk of redundancy throughout the last 10 months I find the public sector's attitude utterly repugnant, especially when there is a fair percentage whose jobs can't really justify their existance in the first place! (And no I don't include nurses, doctors, firefighters or the military in that bracket, those people are the backbone of the public sector, not the needless beaurocrats who soak up big saleries without any justifiable reason for existing.)

Edited 9 October, 2009 by Colinjb

[View From The Top]

In 2008 95.3% of Private School pupils achieved grades a*-c compared with 65.7% at State Schools.

 

http://www.isc.co.uk/FactsFigures_GCSEResults.htm

 

Qualified teachers or not they're doing something right.

 

Those figures also have something to do with Private Schools not entering students for public exams if they don't think they will pass.

[Saint George]

Cyber-Fug, Hampshire says...

6:03pm Wed 7 Oct 09

Southy, I will simplify a basis economic situation as to why socialism will never work.

 

BAR ROOM ECONOMICS

 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and

the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their

bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something

like this:

 

The first four men (the poorest) would pay

nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

 

So, that's what they decided to do.

 

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed

quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the

owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good

customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of

your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost

just £80.

 

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we

pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the

other six men - the paying customers? How could they

divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his

'fair share?'

 

They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if

they subtracted that from everyone's share, then the

fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being

paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested

that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by

roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out

the amounts each should pay.

 

And so:

 

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid

nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33%savings).

 

The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7

(28%savings).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25%

savings).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22%

savings).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16%

savings).

 

Each of the six was better off than before. And the

first four continued to drink for free. But once

outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their

savings.

 

"I only got a pound out of the £20," declared the

sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got

£10!"

 

 

 

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only

saved a pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times

more than I did!"

 

 

 

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should

he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get

all the breaks!"

 

 

 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits

the poor!"

 

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

 

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for

drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without

him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they

discovered something important. They didn't have

enough money between all of them for even half of the

bill!

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and

college professors, is how our tax system works. The

people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit

from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them

for being wealthy, and they just may not show up

anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas

where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

 

Very true.......Not to mention the effect of an overbearing 'Nanny' Barmaid who controls every aspect of the way her customers drink their beer, has a camera and microphone on every table and controls what they talk about, where they sit, and when they can visit the bathroom.......

 

That will see an end to all but the customers who were only there for the Free Beer.....That is, untill the last paying customer has left and gone elsewhere....Then there is 'no' Beer, only tap water....Just what Nanny orderd

[aintforever]

he made the company millions last year so deserves every penny.

 

I think that's one of the main things wrong with society today - people judge success by how much money they can make, not by how much they contribute to society.

 

All this "I worked hard for my fortune" stuff is just ******, there are plenty of people who work just as hard for poor money. A nurse who earns a pitance can work just as hard as a banker who buys and sells a few shares and makes his bank a fortune, and contributes a hell of a lot more to society than making some greedy organisation richer.

 

I earn half decent money, doing something I enjoy which I studied hard for at Uni, but to say I work harder than my chippy mate just because I earn more is complete ******. It's also arrogant in the extreme to suggest these disgusting bankers work harder than some kid getting shot at in Afganistan.

 

I refuse to vote Labour because of the way they lied about going to war in Iraq, and they are a mess. But I think at this present time the very worst thing this country needs is a Tory government. Right now is exactly the time when the rich should contribute a hell of a lot more than they do to try and sort the country out.

[Colinjb]

I think that's one of the main things wrong with society today - people judge success by how much money they can make, not by how much they contribute to society.

 

All this "I worked hard for my fortune" stuff is just ******, there are plenty of people who work just as hard for poor money. A nurse who earns a pitance can work just as hard as a banker who buys and sells a few shares and makes his bank a fortune, and contributes a hell of a lot more to society than making some greedy organisation richer.

 

I earn half decent money, doing something I enjoy which I studied hard for at Uni, but to say I work harder than my chippy mate just because I earn more is complete ******. It's also arrogant in the extreme to suggest these disgusting bankers work harder than some kid getting shot at in Afganistan.

 

I refuse to vote Labour because of the way they lied about going to war in Iraq, and they are a mess. But I think at this present time the very worst thing this country needs is a Tory government. Right now is exactly the time when the rich should contribute a hell of a lot more than they do to try and sort the country out.

 

You have surely just undone your own arguement by saying firstly that the rich don't necessarily contribute because the focus on money is missleading, yet that they should put more money in anyway.

 

Surely the focus should be on getting elements of society who are not contributing back into the loop?

[Johnny Bognor]

I think that's one of the main things wrong with society today - people judge success by how much money they can make, not by how much they contribute to society.

 

But aren't these one in the same thing?

 

Matey boy would be paying 50% tax on his £200k bonus, which by my reckoning contributes £100k to society. This is on top of the tax on his salary.

 

Not to mention....

1) the extra corporation tax payable on the millions he made for his institution (assuming it contributed to the profits)

2) the extra tax paid on dividends by the shareholders of said institution as a result of increased profitability.

 

So matey boy has contributed to society and you need people like this to generate wealth to pay for welfare.

 

The tax on this one bonus, funds 5 nurses for a year. Not belittling the nurses, but just because they make a "non financial contribution" to society doesn't make them better.

 

We are all in this together!

[niceandfriendly]

Everything that is said is recorded in Hansard. Only we can't read it.

 

Yes we can. Hansard is available for anyone to view on the parliament website, entries on there date back years and years. It makes for good bed time reading!

[View From The Top]

But aren't these one in the same thing?

 

Matey boy would be paying 50% tax on his £200k bonus, which by my reckoning contributes £100k to society. This is on top of the tax on his salary.

 

Not to mention....

1) the extra corporation tax payable on the millions he made for his institution (assuming it contributed to the profits)

2) the extra tax paid on dividends by the shareholders of said institution as a result of increased profitability.

 

So matey boy has contributed to society and you need people like this to generate wealth to pay for welfare.

 

The tax on this one bonus, funds 5 nurses for a year. Not belittling the nurses, but just because they make a "non financial contribution" to society doesn't make them better.

 

We are all in this together!

 

Now I'm quite sure you missed the point on purpose.

 

You know very well that he was saying that you shouldn't judge someones standing by the money they generate but by what they contribute to society in general.

 

Who should have the respect? An inner city primary school teacher, dealing with a multitude of issues but doing the very best for the kids or a trader in the city?

 

We all make our choices in life but I do feel quite sorry for those who can only judge success in life in terms of £, $ or €.

[Rattlehead]

I think that's one of the main things wrong with society today - people judge success by how much money they can make, not by how much they contribute to society.

 

And people who earn loads of money generally pay loads of tax, which in turns pays for nurses, teachers etc... You 'do the math'. Everyone who works contributes in a different way.

 

As well as basic economic theory of supply and demand (lots of people could be a nurse whilst much less could earns millions on the stock market etc...), don't forget that it is the private sector that funds the public sector.

[aintforever]

But aren't these one in the same thing?

 

Matey boy would be paying 50% tax on his £200k bonus, which by my reckoning contributes £100k to society. This is on top of the tax on his salary.

 

Not to mention....

1) the extra corporation tax payable on the millions he made for his institution (assuming it contributed to the profits)

2) the extra tax paid on dividends by the shareholders of said institution as a result of increased profitability.

 

So matey boy has contributed to society and you need people like this to generate wealth to pay for welfare.

 

The tax on this one bonus, funds 5 nurses for a year. Not belittling the nurses, but just because they make a "non financial contribution" to society doesn't make them better.

 

We are all in this together!

 

That's exactly why they should be taxed more in this current climate IMO.

[Rattlehead]

That's exactly why they should be taxed more in this current climate IMO.

 

Someone on a basic salary + £200k bonus does pay more tax than someone on £30k. Considerably more. FACT.

[Saintandy666]

But aren't these one in the same thing?

 

Matey boy would be paying 50% tax on his £200k bonus, which by my reckoning contributes £100k to society. This is on top of the tax on his salary.

 

Not to mention....

1) the extra corporation tax payable on the millions he made for his institution (assuming it contributed to the profits)

2) the extra tax paid on dividends by the shareholders of said institution as a result of increased profitability.

 

So matey boy has contributed to society and you need people like this to generate wealth to pay for welfare.

 

The tax on this one bonus, funds 5 nurses for a year. Not belittling the nurses, but just because they make a "non financial contribution" to society doesn't make them better.

 

We are all in this together!

 

Not sure if it is different for bonuses, but I believe we have a banded tax system. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I believe it would be about 6000 pounds not taxed at all then 6,000 to 30,000ish thousand would be taxed at 22% then upwards of that would be 40%, then above 150,000 would be 50%, so in reality he is loosing alot less than half of his money to income tax. Sorry if I'm wrong or if it is a crap explanation. Although to be fair, it's likely his other earnings would mean it would be all over 50% anyway.

[aintforever]

Someone on a basic salary + £200k bonus does pay more tax than someone on £30k. Considerably more. FACT.

 

Of course they do, but I think they should pay more than what they currently do.

 

And I think the last thing we need is a Tory government making sure the rich get off as lightly as possible at the expense of the poor.

[Thedelldays]

Of course they do, but I think they should pay more than what they currently do.

 

And I think the last thing we need is a Tory government making sure the rich get off as lightly as possible at the expense of the poor.

 

How will the rich get off as lightly a possible then ?

[View From The Top]

How will the rich get off as lightly a possible then ?

 

FFS. Do some research.

[Johnny Bognor]

That's exactly why they should be taxed more in this current climate IMO.

 

 

It is about balance and fairness. If you tax him too much, he may **** off abroad and generate wealth for someone else. Who's going to pay for those 5 nurses now?

Edited 9 October, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Thedelldays]

FFS. Do some research.

 

You tell me

[aintforever]

How will the rich get off as lightly a possible then ?

 

The Torys have always favored the wealthy, Labour have traditionally taxed higher earners more.

 

Labour are a mess but I really fear for the country under the conservatives.

[aintforever]

It is about balance and fairness. If you tax him to much, he may **** off abroad and generate wealth for womeone else. Who's going to pay for those 5 nurses now?

 

Someone else, in this current climate there will be plenty of people willing and able to do the same job - even if heavily taxed.

[Thedelldays]

The Torys have always favored the wealthy, Labour have traditionally taxed higher earners more.

 

Labour are a mess but I really fear for the country under the conservatives.

 

So. What Tory policies will favour the rich

[Thedelldays]

Someone else, in this current climate there will be plenty of people willing and able to do the same job - even if heavily taxed.

 

What if there is not

[View From The Top]

You tell me

 

Lets start with inheritance tax shall we.

[Thedelldays]

Lets start with inheritance tax shall we.

 

Is that it?

[View From The Top]

Is that it?

 

Good god, it's like talking to my 7 year old.

[Rattlehead]

What it invariably comes down to is that poor people are jealous of rich people. This will always be true.

 

It annoys me because there is no real poverty in this country. Try going to India or China or plenty of other places, there is genuine povery there. People in the UK who claim to be 'poor' don't know how lucky they are.

[View From The Top]

 

It annoys me because there is no real poverty in this country. Try going to India or China or plenty of other places, there is genuine povery there. People in the UK who claim to be 'poor' don't know how lucky they are.

 

 

That is very, very true.

[Johnny Bognor]

Someone else, in this current climate there will be plenty of people willing and able to do the same job - even if heavily taxed.

 

I disagree there.

 

Take sales people....there are excellent ones, good ones, mediocre ones and crap ones. Companies with good sales people perform better than ones without. It is no coincidence that the best sales people are paid the most as they generate more than crap ones. It is not simply the case of filling the post and it's job done. That may work in the public sector which probably explains the incompetence and wastage...simply putting people in roles irrespective of their abilities to perform. Only people working in the real world could ever understand that.

 

You need good people to create wealth and some are better than others. By having the best, means that more wealth is created and thus there is more to distribute.

Edited 9 October, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[aintforever]

What if there is not

 

Don't be daft.

 

My point is that with the current financial problems where people are struggling to get by, it makes sense to shift the burden of tax towards the higher end, and the Tories traditionally have not favored that.

[Colinjb]

Good god, it's like talking to my 7 year old.

 

So, inheritance tax.... do continue.

[Colinjb]

Don't be daft.

 

My point is that with the current financial problems where people are struggling to get by, it makes sense to shift the burden of tax towards the higher end, and the Tories traditionally have not favored that.

 

As pointed out by the bar economics post though, that can be counter productive if pushed too far.

[sotonjoe]

Those figures also have something to do with Private Schools not entering students for public exams if they don't think they will pass.

 

 

That's hardly a phenomena unqique to independent schools. In fact, with state schools living or dying by their league table position, it's probably even more of an issue in state schools.

[aintforever]

As pointed out by the bar economics post though, that can be counter productive if pushed too far.

 

Of course, but surely now is the current climate to push it in that direction and not make life harder for the low paid?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Good god, it's like talking to my 7 year old.

 

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I've already decided to vote Liberal.

 

I cannot support Brown and I pity anyone who cannot see how empty Cameron is.

 

As I am in Eastleigh I shall be voting Liberal, it's the only way to keep the Tories from winning here.

[Colinjb]

Of course, but surely now is the current climate to push it in that direction and not make life harder for the low paid?

 

Thats already happened though. In many cases it's easier to cheat the system then work. A friend of mine would get more money in claiming from the welfare state then by working, yet to set an example for his daughter he persists. The emphasis should surely be on providing the impetus for people getting back into work rather then taking an easier, more lucrative option. Too many people have sunk into this benefit claiming subculture, getting them back into work is the key to getting out of this rut, looking at the other end of the spectrum is too short term in outlook.

[View From The Top]

Thats already happened though. In many cases it's easier to cheat the system then work. A friend of mine would get more money in claiming from the welfare state then by working, yet to set an example for his daughter he persists. The emphasis should surely be on providing the impetus for people getting back into work rather then taking an easier, more lucrative option. Too many people have sunk into this benefit claiming subculture, getting them back into work is the key to getting out of this rut, looking at the other end of the spectrum is too short term in outlook.

 

TBH I belive that it should be a cross party issue as it's such a big issue that it should transcend party politics.

[aintforever]

Thats already happened though. In many cases it's easier to cheat the system then work. A friend of mine would get more money in claiming from the welfare state then by working, yet to set an example for his daughter he persists. The emphasis should surely be on providing the impetus for people getting back into work rather then taking an easier, more lucrative option. Too many people have sunk into this benefit claiming subculture, getting them back into work is the key to getting out of this rut, looking at the other end of the spectrum is too short term in outlook.

 

I agree, I hate benefit cheats with a passion.

 

A tax system weighted in favour of lower paid jobs would go along way to get people back to work. I agree with the tory's stance on benefits, there are way too many people sponging.

[benjii]

Can't wait for people with some intellectual capability to pick up the reins again instead of the present dimwitted, aspiration-bereft charlatans.

[badgerx16]

Can't wait for people with some intellectual capability to pick up the reins again instead of the present dimwitted, aspiration-bereft charlatans.

Well that rules out the 3 main parties then.

[View From The Top]

Can't wait for people with some intellectual capability to pick up the reins again instead of the present dimwitted, aspiration-bereft charlatans.

 

Don't count on the current batch of tories then.

[badgerx16]

When judging the Tories, all it takes is one name.....

 

Boris Johnson.

 

Case closed.

[dune]

If only we'd ditched the Socialists at the last election the country wouldn't be in the mess it is now.

 

Brown claims to have saved the world with his huge spending on the banks, but all he's done is saddled the country with debt to the tune of £20,000 for every person. We should have let the recession run it's course (as the Americans wanted to do), instead of putting the country in serious debt that'll mean a decade or more of high taxes and cuts to public services.

 

It's a fact that the interest on the debt per anum is as much as we spend on the NHS. That's socialism for you!

 

In David Cameron we have a euro sceptic and his cabinet (with the exception of Ken Clarke) are all euro sceptic too. For the first time in years we'll soon have a government that'll put Britain first and put the continentals in their place.

 

Good times are ahead and generation has once again learnt the lesson that Socialism does not work.

[badgerx16]

If only we'd ditched the Socialists at the last election the country wouldn't be in the mess it is now.

 

Brown claims to have saved the world with his huge spending on the banks, but all he's done is saddled the country with debt to the tune of £20,000 for every person. We should have let the recession run it's course (as the Americans wanted to do), instead of putting the country in serious debt that'll mean a decade or more of high taxes and cuts to public services.

 

It's a fact that the interest on the debt per anum is as much as we spend on the NHS. That's socialism for you!

 

In David Cameron we have a euro sceptic and his cabinet (with the exception of Ken Clarke) are all euro sceptic too. For the first time in years we'll soon have a government that'll put Britain first and put the continentals in their place.

 

Good times are ahead and generation has once again learnt the lesson that Socialism does not work.

Of course the US Government didn't use taxpayer's money to bail out Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, or AIG, did it ? And, as reported on ABC on October 14th last year : "ABC News confirmed Tuesday that the Treasury Department will buy $25 billion in preferred stock in Bank of America, including Merrill Lynch. It will also buy $25 billion in JP Morgan, $10 billion in Goldman Sachs, $3 billion in Bank of New York Mellon and $2 billion in State Street."

 

The US Senate set aside $700 billion to assist the banks and other financial institutions.

 

How Socialist was Dubyah ?

Edited 9 October, 2009 by badgerx16
Think it was the Senate,not the Treasury