Are you more Liberal or More Conservative now than when you were 18?

GA361

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

Pen1987

GA361 wrote: »

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

And the huge financial debt we had during the boom years? wtf...

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

And the huge financial debt we had during the boom years? wtf...

GA361 wrote:

I am only18(well almost).I'd personally describe myself as a Liberal-Conservative,that is to say,Im right wing,but just about.Economically,Im strongly conservative. . . it is tough times like this with the recission that conservative economic policies prosper.Case in point-The Irish Govs basic economic attitude from 1920 right up until the start of the Celtic Tiger.Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)And we see where that got us!The government is now doing the sensible conservative thing,cutting down on pointless expenditure.Of course they are cutting away at important things too like education.But remember,it was generally liberal economic thinking that put the Government in that position.
Although I am conservative,I have some fairly socialist views too(hence the name-liberal conservative.For example,I believe in social welfare,free medical care,high taxes on the rich.But at the same time I don't think that a huge amount of money ought to be assigned to social policy.

I'd agree with your points, but taxes are reduced to such a level, we can't cut them anymore to get out of the recession.

Liberal tends to mean different things economically than politically.

PS. The Govt. did concentrate on reducing National debt during the boom years. It's why we can borrow so much now, unlike the UK, Still, it can only last so long.

Firetrap

More liberal. As I've lived life in the real world, I've learned that there are shades of grey. Now, my philosophy is that as long as nobody gets hurt and no-one frightens the horses, let it be. I suppose too, as I've aged, I've done things I thought I'd never do when I was 18.

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

The government became more liberal in the boom years? You mean when they invested all that money in school and hospitals? And raised taxes for multinationals? Oh and when they closed all the loopholes for super-rich tax exiles and upped the higher tax bracket.

I get the feeling that your implying that conservative principles were put into action as opposed to liberal!Is that what you are trying to say?If so,then you seriously misunderstand the differences between liberal and conservative economic and social policy.Believe it or not,as I have mentioned in my previous post,education and healthcare roughly fall into social policy bracket:eek:.
You should be a bit more clear in the future as to what exactly you are saying.

Pen1987

GA361 wrote: »

I get the feeling that your implying that conservative principles were put into action as opposed to liberal!Is that what you are trying to say?If so,then you seriously misunderstand the differences between liberal and conservative economic and social policy.Believe it or not,as I have mentioned in my previous post,education and healthcare roughly fall into social policy bracket:eek:.
You should be a bit more clear in the future as to what exactly you are saying.

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

Did they not? Is this opinion or backed up by facts?

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

l

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

WAH? Not being smart, but what age where you in the late 80's?

Pen1987

Seanies32 wrote: »

Did they not? Is this opinion or backed up by facts?

RE: National debt

RE: Healthcare system. Although admittedly that article is from yesterday. I'm not arsed digging out anything more, it is generally accepted that while we had less national debt than the majority of the world we were having our cash pissed into the foundations of dodgey hi-rise office blocks and not public health.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

RE: National debt

That is 2005, not 1988.

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

No. I was saying that the government never ploughed money into any schools or hospitals as you implied. You see the A&E's going off call last week? The crisis in the Healthcare system all through the boom? If anything they neglected the healthcare system.

As for your comment about national debt being huge, we had hardly any national debt, and still have hardly any.

Firstly,I never said we had 'huge' national debt,I just said that thrugh conservatives eyes' national is indeed a 'serious' issue,in fact,I didn't even mention Ireland's national debt.
As regards the government 'plughing' money into education and healthcare,you couldn't be more wrong.The government did plough huge money into edu and health.But that's all they did.They failed to organise how every penny of the money would be spent like a conservative gov would have done.Result:A huge amount of dead wood being hired/money sqaundered.Similarly,in education money was also squandered.Eg,instead of building new schools,they decided to hire,at a huge cost, prefabs. . . . there's some nice liberal economic logic-We'll pump the money in but we won't make it efficient.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

RE: Healthcare system. Although admittedly that article is from yesterday. I'm not arsed digging out anything more, it is generally accepted that while we had less national debt than the majority of the world we were having our cash pissed into the foundations of dodgey hi-rise office blocks and not public health.

Oh, are these the consultants on €280,000 contracts and nobody the world over, can believe they can treat private patients on Govt. property.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Steve.Pseudonym wrote: »

The problem is, identifying yourself as a conservative puts you in the same boat as some undesirable people, such as racists, homophobes, sexists, even outright fascists. Basically I believe in people's right to self determination with the least government interference feasible. I'm a big fan of capitalism, you make your own money based on your own merit rather than being given things by the state, but that said I still support a safety net for people who fall on hard times.

True, but call yourslef a liberal and eveyone accuses you of being a dreadlocked tree-hugging hippy.

I don't think true liberalism exists in Ireland.

K-9

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

True, but call yourslef a liberal and eveyone accuses you of being a dreadlocked tree-hugging hippy.

I don't think true liberalism exists in Ireland.

No, or true conservatism.

Pen1987

Seanies32 wrote: »

That is 2005, not 1988.

Did I miss something? We were talking the boom years... the ones that just ended I thought?

to Quote GA
"Of course the Government became a bit too liberal in the Boom years(i.e investing too much in social policy and not focusing on the more serious financial issues like national debt)"

I'm certainly not taking "the boom years" to be 1988, I'd hardly even take them to be around 1998. Hence my source of 2005.

The government did plough huge money into edu and health.But that's all they did.They failed to organise how every penny of the money would be spent like a conservative gov would have done.Result:A huge amount of dead wood being hired/money sqaundered.Similarly,in education money was also squandered.Eg,instead of building new schools,they decided to hire,at a huge cost, prefabs. . . . there's some nice liberal economic logic-We'll pump the money in but we won't make it efficient.

I'm with you on the squandered but I'm far from with you on the "huge" money. It's 01.35, I'll go source the budgets from the boom years in morning and check what % went towards health edu as opposed to multinationals.

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

tallaght01

Seanies32 wrote: »

Oh, are these the consultants on €280,000 contracts and nobody the world over, can believe they can treat private patients on Govt. property.

Well, the ones on the 280k contracts don't treat private patients.

And they don't get juniors, or a secretary.

So, it IS bad value for money, but for the reasons that it's just a numbers exercise, as a consultant who's not got a team to run is not going to be as productive as he should be.

But who knows the secret to a liberalist approach to healthcare. The UK have tried it, and just can't afford it, and they pay their docs much less than most countries.

It's just very hard to give people free health. The cheaper it is, the more people use it. It's a vicious cycle.

The Conservative approach has been tried int he states. You get fantastic healthcare if you can afford it, but third world health if you can't.

I don't know what the answers are though

GA361

Pen1987 wrote: »

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

Jaysus no.That is one of the main reasons that I am Liberal-Conservative as opposed to Conservative.That was an area where money was invested wisely.I just think that national debt is a serious issue,however minute it may be. . . I guess that is just the Coservative half of me coming out.

Anyways,its late.Goodnight.

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

Did I miss something? We were talking the boom years... the ones that just ended I thought?

Yep, you did miss something, my post. You also seem to have missed the boom years from 96 - 05.

MANY would say the boom ended in 01.

Where do you think YOUR boom started? 2005?

Tallaght01 wrote:

Well, the ones on the 280k contracts don't treat private patients.

Indeed they don't. They get paid €320 k?

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

Just so we're on the same boat here, you're not referring to "free fees" at third level as ploughing money into education right?

Not for me. Waste of resources. Middle class sop it was.

tallaght01

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed they don't. They get paid €320 k?

From the dept of health: (Type A contracts are public only)

Health service employers have offered Consultants an annual salary of up to €216,000 to sign up to the new Type A contract, and up to €190,000 for the new Type B contract. This is an interim offer. The final determination of the salaries applicable to the new contracts will be made by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector.

This offer relates to basic salary only. The potential annual earnings of a Type A contract holder would be in the region of €275,000 when weekend working and on-call, call out payments are included.

I think, though, the issue is where health is inefficient? Do you think consultants dropping, say 100k of their salaries would improve it?

Is the cutting of healthcare salaries a left wing or a right wing stance?

On one hand, you're taking money away from the middle class consultants, but at the same time you're taking healthcare staff away from the poor and sick.....hmmmm, I don't know the answer myself.

Pen1987

**** it, should be in bed but ended up reading a lump in the Lisbon treaty.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Not for me. Waste of resources. Middle class sop it was.

Exactly, I'm dead in agreement with you on that. All it did was push the Uni's towards the commercial sectors and stick them in a tonne of debt when funding didn't match inflation.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yep, you did miss something, my post. You also seem to have missed the boom years from 96 - 05.

MANY would say the boom ended in 01.

Where do you think YOUR boom started? 2005?



Indeed they don't. They get paid €320 k?

No, ended in 2005. Hence the 2005 source. The boom ended in 2005 and we'd hardly any national debt. re: consultants, tallaght01.

K-9

Come on, is €275,000 for overtime and unsociable hours bad?

Seriously, stop making excuses.

I never mentioned wages drops, just they are bloody well paid. I hate to see them moaning about the Health Service when they are well paid to deal with it.

Pen1987

His point isnt about the money, it's about the paitients theyre treating and who's paying them to do so.


*gone to bed*

K-9

Pen1987 wrote: »

**** it, should be in bed but ended up reading a lump in the Lisbon treaty.

I'll leave that for another night!

Pen1987 wrote:

Exactly, I'm dead in agreement with you on that. All it did was push the Uni's towards the commercial sectors and stick them in a tonne of debt
when funding didn't match inflation.

That and it did very little for working class participation, which it was supposed to improve.

Pen1987 wrote:

No, ended in 2005. Hence the 2005 source. The boom ended in 2005 and we'd hardly any national debt. re: consultants, tallaght01.

Exactly.

The boom ended in 05, HENCE the low debt figures! That's where a fair bit of the money went.

You seem to be saying the boom wasn't spent on debt as it is low, yet point to the low Govt. debt that the Govt. paid off with the Boom.

Seriously Confused!

When where these boom years you talk off and can you get the Debt figures at the start and end? Something isn't adding up here.

tallaght01

Seanies32 wrote: »

Come on, is €275,000 for overtime and unsociable hours bad?

Seriously, stop making excuses.

I never mentioned wages drops, just they are bloody well paid. I hate to see them moaning about the Health Service when they are well paid to deal with it.

:rolleyes: when did I make excuses?

I'm just correcting the facts. I think 80 odd euro an hour is a good salary. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's not what's crippling health. In the UK a consultant get about 80 thousand euro a year, and their healthcare system is crap.

PLus, you can pay someone what you like...it doesn't mean that they'll suddenly be miraculously able to fix it.

There's a lot of lefties in medicine. it's a self selecting group. So, it's in their nature to complain about poor health. I think the point they were making is that it's not an issue with frontline efficiency.

It's simply an issue of underdstaffing/under-resourcing.

My leftie slant is that this is true. I'd personally pay higher taxes for better healthcare, particularly for the less well off.

Out of curiosity, in high tax Ireland, would most of those here who describe themselves as left wing be prepared to pay even higher taxes for more "socially beneficial" causes?

K-9

tallaght01 wrote: »

:rolleyes: when did I make excuses?

I'm just correcting the facts. I think 80 odd euro an hour is a good salary. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying it's not what's crippling health. In the UK a consultant get about 80 thousand euro a year, and their healthcare system is crap.

But why pay more than the UK for no extra benefit.

Forget wages, concentrate on work practices for 5 grand a week contracts!

stovelid

tallaght01 wrote: »

:

Out of curiosity, in high tax Ireland, would most of those here who describe themselves as left wing be prepared to pay even higher taxes for more "socially beneficial" causes?

If it was used properly, definitely.

c0rk3r

Ambivalent. For the most part people are a contradiction. When there doing drugs their left-wing, back to Brussels hippies but when their talking about anti-social behaviour its 1942 Nazi Germany setting up concentration camps. I can be either; whatever suits me at the time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seanies32 wrote: »

No, or true conservatism.

Yes you do!! Not neo-con, no, but you get a lot of financial conservatism in Dublin (ie - emphasis on earning money) and more religious/political conservatism down the country (people consistantly voting along famliy lines). To a certain extent, the tabloids keep it conservative as well.

I think you may well be right in a few years, though. Especially if Fianna Fail continue to **** up the economy.

piby

I've become more conservative on certain things but a lot more liberal on others so I guess it just evens out!