Civil unrest may force June election...

Darragh29

Now before you go locking this on me, these are not my thoughts but the thoughts of Fianna Fail strategist Noel Whelan, who aired these views on TV3's The Political Party.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/civil-unrest-may-force-june-poll-1673559.html

I'm getting wary about this budget, if they cut social welfare payments, or childrens allowance, will people just flame up???

kerry4sam

That article was interesting reading there but I can, unfortunately, see Fianna Fail wethering this upcoming storm somehow and actually manage to avoid a General Election.

I believe FG don't actually want to be in Government at these harsh times and would just prefer to let FF carry the can and watch from across the Dail floor especially since their numbers are as good as they are atm.

But in saying that though, they might feel more confident about leading the country if the locals/EU elections go their way.

oscarBravo

Darragh29 wrote: »

I'm getting wary about this budget, if they cut social welfare payments, or childrens allowance, will people just flame up???

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

yoshytoshy

Some payments on the social welfare are ridiculous ,there should be a much broader range of payment levels.
Some people should get a little more and some a lot less.

P. Breathnach

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

The standard suggestions are
- that the pay of public servants be cut (a suggestion not at all agreed by those employed in the public service)
- that the wealthy (meaning anybody with more resources than the person posting) should pay more taxes.

Interpretation: "somebody else must pay, not me".

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ejmaztec

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

It would be very easy for the government to hammer the tax-payer, both directly and indirectly, but if they do do that, the non-food and cheap clothing retail sector will be deceased. Lenihan's already admitted that the vat increase was a mistake, something that even the dogs on the street knew.

I don't think that there is any way in which the government can make up the huge difference by expecting the population to fund it.

Then it's down to the IMF or a miracle.

AlekSmart

What do people suggest instead, to fill in the multi-billion euro hole in the public finances?

OscarBravo,I think Daragh29 was just underlining the lack of alternative to MAJOR cuts in the Social Welfare budget which are IMO now Inevitable.

The continued payment of significant amounts of Benefit to certain groups of claimants cannot be reconsiled with a rapidly decreasing amount of contributions froman equally decreasing number of contributors.

Somewhere within the past two decades the Republic decided to rewrite the basic rule of ALL Insurance schemes...Social or Commercial.

"The contributions of the Many shall pay for the Claims of the Few"

It`s a simplistic and pithy description of what SHOULD have been a Social Support system designed to SUPPORT rather than MAINTAIN a claimants particular Lifestyle,whatever that may have been.

The real threat comes in this case not from OAP`s or those recieveing Short Term CONTRIBUTORY payments who,in the main,have funded through their many years of such payments their own Insurance.

However, the huge Pink Elephant now sitting the the Social Welfare waiting room is hundreds of thousands of Claimants who have NEVER contributed a cent into any of the PRSI classifications and who have simply been accepted intop membership of a unique club which has funded a parallell existence.

This is the group which will be attracting the attention of the "Activists","Agitators"and "Motivators" each of whom have their own agenda`s to pursue.
I agree with Darragh29..these are dangerous times and we seem to be totally unaware of just how unstable a society we now inhabit !!!

yoshytoshy

Racism is going to play a big part in this argument ,as time goes by.
Theres going to be violence ,but theres nothing we can do about it. Just try and be prepared for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's one way to cope with hard times: think about how much worse they might be.

Satire can be good for the spirit.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

....everything?

While I would agree that the system is way too bloated (especially in relation to the size of the country) what you're suggestion sounds more like anarchy to me than reform.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do that and the brightest people will leave the country and you'll be left with the crap that lived off the stated during the boom times because everyone else will have emigrated :P

One problem of taking social welfare away from people who haven't contributed is you'll need increased policing to cope with all the new crime.

So is it cheaper to have more police or to pay these people their benefits?

I'm not against taking away their benefits and I do realise the size of the hole in the budget but I'm not sure we can keep policing levels at their current level and maintain civil order in many small towns and villages if benefits are cut to these people.

thebigcheese22

God donegalfella will use any opportunity to spread that libertarian bull****...gotta respect him for that at least!

ejmaztec

thebman wrote: »

Do that and the brightest people will leave the country and you'll be left with the crap that lived off the stated during the boom times because everyone else will have emigrated :P

One problem of taking social welfare away from people who haven't contributed is you'll need increased policing to cope with all the new crime.

So is it cheaper to have more police or to pay these people their benefits?

I'm not against taking away their benefits and I do realise the size of the hole in the budget but I'm not sure we can keep policing levels at their current level and maintain civil order in many small towns and villages if benefits are cut to these people.

It may be cheaper to maintain current policing levels and leave it up to the individual to pay protection monies to the local "thug" to keep the starving people away from your property.

thebman

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

God donegalfella will use any opportunity to spread that libertarian bull****...gotta respect him for that at least!

In fairness, if there were ever a time to call for the abolition of government and unions, it is now.

Assuming you believe it would work of course.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Offy

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I like that idea donegalfella.

yoshytoshy

Ah lads come on ,who would pay for the buildings that need building ,roads ,immigration control etc.

Next we'll be all driving around in multicolor volkswagen vans.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fear, most notably fear of extreme change in the way the country is run. The reason people on benefits wouldn't leave is because they can't afford to and probably wouldn't be entitled to benefits anywhere else since they aren't citizens of those countries and haven not worked there in their lives. More likely to stay behind and rob anyone who is working that did stay in the country.

So we should pay people not to become criminals? Regardless, I don't find a historical justification for your argument. Even during the Famine, we didn't see a widespread breakdown of civil order.

There will most definitely be an increase in crime if you take away the benefits from people that have never contributed to society. They have a sense of entitlement to their payments and if you take it away, they will most likely find another way to support their lifestyle. Crime has already gone up since we entered recession. People that have lost out in society will inevitably feel they should get their own back on society. It is only natural, it is revenge.

I'm not sure if we have proper records of famine time crime rates.

I don't want to pay them to not become criminals. I just want the cheaper option. If we have to get more police to arrest people then we will have to pay for them and pay for the courts to give them a fair trial and pay for the prisons to house them should they be convicted.

Is this cheaper than giving them the dole or a substantially reduce dole payment? I don't know, it should be examined is all I'm saying. We should try to work out in advance what the consequences of our actions will be. No point walking head first into something and then learning the lesson if we can find the answer before hand.

I wouldn't be against a situation where people who have not worked for a certain period of time that indicates they have no interest in working are requested to perform state duties such as street cleaning in an effort to at least get them out of the house.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

peasant

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Moral problems are a nice luxury to have ...but not for much longer

What exactly do you propose to do with half a million jobless people suddenly without income ...(keeping in mind that most of those would have built up an entitlement to some sort of governement help)?

Foodstamps? Butter vouchers?

Or are you just quietly trying to promote your new Rottweiler & shotgun dealership? :D:D

mikemac

Foodstamps are good enough for 28 million Americans. Source

Wouldn't be a shock to see them introduced here though that's a brand new scheme to administer so possibly not

silverharp

peasant wrote: »

Moral problems are a nice luxury to have ...but not for much longer

What exactly do you propose to do with half a million jobless people suddenly without income ...(keeping in mind that most of those would have built up an entitlement to some sort of governement help)?

Foodstamps? Butter vouchers?

Or are you just quietly trying to promote your new Rottweiler & shotgun dealership? :D:D

its obviously part of a bigger picture , every client of the state wants their part of the pie left alone but doesnt mind others taking the hit. We signed up to not having deficits bigger then 3% , at a minimum this should be the line in sand wrt to current spending. As far as I'm concerned there are whole departments that dont serve the average persons interests , these should be closed straight away.
When reality dawns that additional debt will increase borrowing rates for the gov. and everyone else (quite rightly) at somepoint the "state" will have to decide if it wants to be subprime where it ends up canabilising the assets of the people or taking tough measures now

NewDubliner

silverharp wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned there are whole departments that dont serve the average persons interests , these should be closed straight away.

Name them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

Hope you've got a gun with 500,000 round of ammunition DF, they'll all be coming for your private sector riches.

Sorry, make that 800,000 after you've sacked all the public sector.

Dr Galen

while I don't agree with some of your more right leaning principles I can definitely agree that urgent reform of the Social Welfare system is needed.

As you rightly point out, the social is almost like a career option for many people out there. Thats not its purpose at all. It's meant to be a stopgap, something to get you by, not to live off for the rest of your life. Unless you have some physical incapacity to work that is, then I'd feel that the state has a role to play in your support, likewise with things like say maternity benefit.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the problem is, that in order to solve situations like this that happen all over the country it will take a lot more time than we've got. It's pretty much going to take a generation for this to go away.

really this sort of thing should have been done during the boom years, when we had the cash to double fund, i.e continue to pay single mothers allowance, but get a real and effective program togehter allowing them to get out to work, including government sponsored childcare, training allowances etc. Now we don't have the proverbial pot, so none of this can happen.

Aprils gonna be a tough month for a lot of people out there

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? You want to cut off all social and income supports for hundreds of thousands of people and you expect them to say that DF is right, I'm an uneconomic unit and should eff off and die, or maybe Bangladesh will take me in.

You might be sorely disappointed if the Army and Gardai step aside and say "Go for it lads".

(I noticed you kept them because protecting you and your wealth is one of the few true and worthwhile functions of the state.)