Is Mary Coughlan too lightweight for Tainiste?

dresden8

Darragh29 wrote: »

I wouldn't make a good politician, I curse too much, I couldn't give a speech without calling someone a c*nt...

I'd vote for you, depends on who you call a c*nt though. Give us some names.

johnnyskeleton

Is that a dig at Mary Harney?

Darragh29

dresden8 wrote: »

I'd vote for you, depends on who you call a c*nt though. Give us some names.

The subject of this thead for a start, her burger chomping colleague in the Dept. of Health & Children and the two biggest c*nts of them all, the two Brians.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

Richard Bruton would be the ideal choice for Finance, the guy actually knows what he is talking about and is not blowing smoke and asking us to be patriotic.

Yes and no, he's undoubtedly more informed than Linehan is but from a technical economic point of view his debate on Prime Time with Cowen before the last election showed faults in his reasoning on some issues from my memory of it. He comes across better and far more informed on a bad day than Joan Burton has ever managed in my opinion, so when there's a change in Government I'd hope that he would get it over her (or Gilmore), I'd just be wary of building up expectations too high about him. He also has the luxury of not having to implement any of his policy suggestions which makes it far easier to look good which is very important to keep in mind here.

97i9y3941

sometimes i wonder how could she say that "our educated workforce will make business attrative to this country",i mean,some of the forigners are more educated than some of us,another way of showing her statement doesnt really work is when you see alot of factories closeing and moving abroad,cause 1-they are cheap labour,and 2-the work force is educated there too,they are really only coming here for the tax breaks

dresden8

Darragh29 wrote: »

The subject of this thead for a start, her burger chomping colleague in the Dept. of Health & Children and the two biggest c*nts of them all, the two Brians.

Sold. Darragh for dictator for life. Do we get to shoot anyone?

El Stuntman

note the way that badabing continues to avoid the issue and waffle about the opposition

classic FF tactics encapsulated thus; we may have been in power for the last 11 years but (a) nothing bad that has happened is our fault, (b) anything good that has happened is down to us, and (c) 'ah shure the other crowd are worse'!

it's waffle like this which is making sensible people consider emigration - how can a government with such a poverty of vision be capable of getting us through this depression?

:mad:

(btw, I hold no torch for any of the opposition parties and would love to see a new political force in Irish politics to shake out the dead wood on all sides. God knows, there's enough of it)

ninty9er

El Stuntman wrote: »

it's waffle like this which is making sensible people consider emigration - how can a government with such a poverty of vision be capable of getting us through this depression?

Off you go so. You might find Dubai has no taxes, but wait until they run out of oil. You might find the US has lower taxes, but health insurance is $15,000 for a family of 4 on basic cover.

The government doesn't have a poverty of vision, there is an unwillingness to be radical because essentially the public don't like change, will bitch, moan and vote for the opposition, who will change nothing and there is a perpetual rotation of governent that achieves very little because it has to plan in 5 year periods or below.

My parents have been building the garden up for 10 years and they're still nowhere near done.

Waste, blah, "the facts about this government", blah, "I'd do it this way", blah.

That's all well and good to say it, but hand it over and ask them to implement it and they'll come up against the saem roadblocks as the current government.

dresden8

ninty9er wrote: »

perpetual rotation of governent

If only.

El Stuntman

ninty9er wrote: »

The government doesn't have a poverty of vision, there is an unwillingness to be radical because essentially the public don't like change, will bitch, moan and vote for the opposition, who will change nothing and there is a perpetual rotation of governent that achieves very little because it has to plan in 5 year periods or below.

wow, it's the public's fault, of course!

sorry FF'ers I apologise for besmirching your good name :pac:

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

If only.

Well since the foundation of the State we've essentially had rotation between FG and FF (in their various incarnations). We've only had a particularly long run of FF governments recently because we had an exceptionally long boom period. The changes have been in more coalition government in recent years which, arguably, is a good thing for the country because it brings in change to an otherwise predictable cycle.

El Stuntman wrote: »

wow, it's the public's fault, of course!

It's not but whatever Government we elect will be subject to the same very powerful vested interests that the previous Government was subject to. Until we get a Government who will actually face down and defeat these (and this will require broad public support to happen!) then we're going to have a lot of difficulty dealing with our bloated public service pay-rolls and other issues. If the same kind of public protest and anger could be summoned on these issues as was present for the medical card cuts for the elderly then we would see change being affected, but so long as the vast majority of people remain silent on them and don't put a lot of pressure on their TDs about them then we're unlikely to see these resolved.

dresden8

Ah the bloated public service chestnut again.

One of the reasons it's so "bloated" is because it's full of Bertie's mates. Remember, they're not there because they gave him money, it's because they're his friends.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

Ah the bloated public service chestnut again.

One of the reasons it's so "bloated" is because it's full of Bertie's mates. Remember, they're not there because they gave him money, it's because they're his friends.

Eh, the problem is a lot bigger than the people Bertie appointed because they were his mates as much of a joke as that was.

97i9y3941

its bloated alright,but whos gonna stand up to them and say it?,no one,they are running scared,its all with ego too,you dont work in an office anymore your an "admin" now

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

Off you go so. You might find Dubai has no taxes, but wait until they run out of oil. You might find the US has lower taxes, but health insurance is $15,000 for a family of 4 on basic cover.

And your point is ?
Using that logic maybe people in Limerick should be thankful it's not as bad as Bagdad :rolleyes:

ninty9er wrote: »

The government doesn't have a poverty of vision, there is an unwillingness to be radical because essentially the public don't like change, will bitch, moan and vote for the opposition, who will change nothing and there is a perpetual rotation of governent that achieves very little because it has to plan in 5 year periods or below.

So your argument is that the government should not bother because it will upset the applecart, the other side won't do anything either and changing government is bad because it means you can make long term plans.
Maybe you should join the communists party ?
Oh hang on, Stalin believed in 5 year plans :rolleyes:

Did you ever hear of planning, building (not ffing houses here but infratructure, education, society) and implementing things for the country's good and not just so you can get relected next time.
It's because you want to leave a long term legacy.

Did JFK decide to go to the moon because he wanted to get relected next time ?
No he did because he wanted to further the dreams and aspirations of the country.

ninty9er wrote: »

My parents have been building the garden up for 10 years and they're still nowhere near done.

Sounds a bit like the way the Luas or the Dublin port tunnel were built, they still ain't finished completly.
Hey I notice a bit of a trend here.

ninty9er wrote: »

Waste, blah, "the facts about this government", blah, "I'd do it this way", blah.

That's all well and good to say it, but hand it over and ask them to implement it and they'll come up against the saem roadblocks as the current government.

So we shoudln't complain that you blew the money becuase someone else might be just as bad.
Great argument, remind me never to vote you in as a club treasurer :rolleyes:

If that argument was used in any sports club, company or business nobody would ever be replaced or fired because they blew budgets.
Hell half of these entities would be out bankrupt.
What am I saying that sounds just like Ireland Inc :rolleyes:

nesf wrote: »

Well since the foundation of the State we've essentially had rotation between FG and FF (in their various incarnations). We've only had a particularly long run of FF governments recently because we had an exceptionally long boom period. The changes have been in more coalition government in recent years which, arguably, is a good thing for the country because it brings in change to an otherwise predictable cycle.

It's not but whatever Government we elect will be subject to the same very powerful vested interests that the previous Government was subject to. Until we get a Government who will actually face down and defeat these (and this will require broad public support to happen!) then we're going to have a lot of difficulty dealing with our bloated public service pay-rolls and other issues. If the same kind of public protest and anger could be summoned on these issues as was present for the medical card cuts for the elderly then we would see change being affected, but so long as the vast majority of people remain silent on them and don't put a lot of pressure on their TDs about them then we're unlikely to see these resolved.

Yes the people are to blame but as long as we have voters and party hacks like badabing and ninty9er who will blindly back up the party no matter the level of incompetence and corruptioon then we are doomed.

97i9y3941

same ould ****e anyway,they are like people offering gifts if you vote for them,then suddenly they cant do it,theres cut backs

EamonnKeane

dresden8 wrote: »

Ah the bloated public service chestnut again.

One of the reasons it's so "bloated" is because it's full of Bertie's mates. Remember, they're not there because they gave him money, it's because they're his friends.

it - is - not - bloated. It is much smaller than the OECD average. Ireland, in general, has a tiny government,

97i9y3941

it was recently highlighted on prime time that 16 thousand people work in the admin end of the HSE,sure some of them could be moved temporarily to the welfare offices to help clear the backlog of claims?

Mr.Micro

Fred83 wrote: »

it was recently highlighted on prime time that 16 thousand people work in the admin end of the HSE,sure some of them could be moved temporarily to the welfare offices to help clear the backlog of claims?

You would have to wake them up first.

nesf

EamonnKeane wrote: »

it - is - not - bloated. It is much smaller than the OECD average. Ireland, in general, has a tiny government,

We also have one of the lowest tax takes versus GDP in the OECD though, so in relative terms do we have a tiny government? The question of bloating is one of the size of our civil sector versus our tax regime not one of absolute size. If we raised our taxes to similar levels seen in other OECD countries we could easily afford our civil sector but that doesn't mean it isn't bloated given our present tax levels.

jmayo

EamonnKeane wrote: »

it - is - not - bloated. It is much smaller than the OECD average. Ireland, in general, has a tiny government,

Tiny me granny, have seen the size of some of them

dresden8

nesf wrote: »

We also have one of the lowest tax takes versus GDP in the OECD though, so in relative terms do we have a tiny government? The question of bloating is one of the size of our civil sector versus our tax regime not one of absolute size. If we raised our taxes to similar levels seen in other OECD countries we could easily afford our civil sector but that doesn't mean it isn't bloated given our present tax levels.

That other old chestnut. We may have low income taxes but we get screwed up the ass in indirect taxes. Which impact the poor disproportionately. Can't have the rich paying too much tax now can we?

I don't know why I come into here to read this FF sh1te over and over again.

Gandalf23

ninty9er wrote: »

Government's line is still that it wishes to reduce class sizes but can't in the current climate. Mine has been 30/35 isn't a big class and never has been. I have always held that opinion.

That is incorrect.

FF and the Greens HAVE CHOSEN not to reduce class sizes. Its NOT that they "cant" reduce class sizes ... they could if they wanted to. Instead they have CHOSEN to target the poor, the young and the old.

Interesting that your opinion that 30/35 in a class "isn't a big class". This seems to clash with almost every other informed opinion and research study I can find on class sizes. I'd be very interested in why your opinion is the exact opposite of all the expert reports on this matter.

Gandalf23

ninty9er wrote: »

I support my party, I will back it up, because the party is more than a stated opinion of government. It's not a crime. It's like supporting a family member who has committed a crime. What they have done is wrong and that's not the issue, you still support them.

This bullsh1t typifies exactly why we are in this mess. It explains very accurately the mind and mentality of the typical FF supporter.

A true brother/sister will speak up when "a family member" does something wrong. It takes real guts and character to stand up and say "stop" when you see unfairness and injustice. The mark of an honorable man/woman is when they stand and shout "enough" when the defenseless and those without a voice are being attacked.

I think Edmund Burke said it best when he said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

So all you FF'ers continue to support your FF "family". Do nothing. Let Edmund Burke be proven right again.

nesf

dresden8 wrote: »

That other old chestnut. We may have low income taxes but we get screwed up the ass in indirect taxes. Which impact the poor disproportionately. Can't have the rich paying too much tax now can we?

I don't know why I come into here to read this FF sh1te over and over again.

I was talking about tax versus GDP which is a completely different thing to what you're going on about. Indirect taxes can disproportionately hit the poor (the TV licence is the classic example) but many don't (VAT being the other classic example). I agree that we can't just look at income tax levels which is why I'm talking about tax take versus GDP levels which gives us a measure of the size of our economy versus the amount taken out of it via taxation.

Gandalf23

ninty9er wrote: »

I support my party, I will back it up, because the party is more than a stated opinion of government. It's not a crime. It's like supporting a family member who has committed a crime. What they have done is wrong and that's not the issue, you still support them.

I just have to quote 99'er again here.

This is a sick attitude from someone from Limerick ... especially because of what has happened there in the last few days with the shooting of the rugby player.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

Indirect taxes can disproportionately hit the poor (the TV licence is the classic example) but many don't (VAT being the other classic example).

VAT is an indirect tax which disproportionately hits the poor. Are you saying it isn't?

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

VAT is an indirect tax which disproportionately hits the poor. Are you saying it isn't?

The difference is, you pay the same amount for a TV licence regardless of whether you earn 20K or 200K a year, which is horribly disproportionate, while the amount you pay in VAT a year is completely dependent on how much you spend, i.e. what you earn. Also, a person on a lower income will spend a higher proportion of their income on goods that have a reduced or zero VAT rate, like food. A person on a middle income will hand over a bigger percentage of their income in VAT than someone on a low income because of this. This would be why I strongly disagree with taxes like the TV licence and have less of a problem with things like VAT.

nesf

Guys, I would ask you to please not descend into calling supporters of other parties cowards, gutless or any other derogatory term. There is absolutely no need to do so and it lowers the tone of discussion in this forum and it will not be tolerated. Also going after individuals because of their party allegiances is not kosher and you should limit yourself to attacking their posts only.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

The difference is, you pay the same amount for a TV licence regardless of whether you earn 20K or 200K a year, which is horribly disproportionate, while the amount you pay in VAT a year is completely dependent on how much you spend, i.e. what you earn. Also, a person on a lower income will spend a higher proportion of their income on goods that have a reduced or zero VAT rate, like food. A person on a middle income will hand over a bigger percentage of their income in VAT than someone on a low income because of this. This would be why I strongly disagree with taxes like the TV licence and have less of a problem with things like VAT.

With the greatest respect to you as a mod of this forum, that is absolute rubbish.

VAT is a regressive tax for exactly the same reason as you say a TV license is "horribly disproportionate" ... i.e. you pay the same amount of VAT on an iPod whether you earn 20K or 200K a year.

So VAT is the same as a TV license! Its the same thing ... a "horribly disproportionate", regressive tax.