You are not a f*cking DJ. You’re an overpaid, untalented, cake-throwing c*nt.

electrogrimey

They're not giving us money, they're lending us money. The national debt is gonna be one of the worst in the world for the foreseeable future. Basically every budget from now until I'm about 60 is going to be horrible. Even if the economy recovers, we're still going to have massive national debt, and are going to have to keep expenditure low and taxes high just to service the interest.

If they had given this budget years ago it would have been a good thing.

electrogrimey

Ha, I got an infraction for posting that picture on the politics forum. How very dry.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

ah i see what you did there.
National Geographic is the ultimate way of quelling dentist waiting room anxiety. That's one thing good about going to dentists and doctors. They always have a shedload of nat geos just sitting there waiting to be read. Last week I learned all about Greenland while waiting to have a filling done. Was great.

And do feel very tempted to take one with me on occasion to finish whatever article i didnt get to the end of:(

jtsuited wrote: »

That and toasted cheese sandwiches. Like valium for the soul.

Sorry, toasted cheese is only like nurofen, Toasted cheese with green olives & pork salami all grilled is Valium;)

jtsuited wrote: »

btw, does anyone else feel guilty about being only bloody delighted that this whole IMF thing has happened??

I mean, they're gonna cut 10 billion in public spending (about fcukin time), and only gonna up the tax to get 5 billion (which in the grand scale of things won't hurt too much depending on where they decide to take it from).

The liquidity in the banks is gonna be sorted with money which isn't ours (fcuking win!), and now we've got the whole eurozone and IMF invested heavily in our country which means we have them by the balls.

This country's got to make some money now simply because the IMF and EU can't let it go any other way.

Am I missing something here?
Apart from all the cuts to the public sector, and the reduction in social welfare, etc, I think this has been a great development.

electrogrimey wrote: »

They're not giving us money, they're lending us money. The national debt is gonna be one of the worst in the world for the foreseeable future. Basically every budget from now until I'm about 60 is going to be horrible. Even if the economy recovers, we're still going to have massive national debt, and are going to have to keep expenditure low and taxes high just to service the interest.

If they had given this budget years ago it would have been a good thing.

Grimey is on the money here, its all with interest & they are happy to be heavily invested in this country, as long as we are m,arked down as owing money then the criteria about how long or how the interest is calculated will be adjusted & changed to suit but no fear they will cream it off us for decades to come unless someone says 'All bets are off'

And 10 billion in public spending (about fuc.kin time) jeff!!!!!!!!

I'll take it that after midnight on a sunday you are not as coherent as you usually would be with that statement, public spending translates into pensions, welfare, child benefit etc......it sure aint gonna be made up from the top of the tree in the public sector payroll, all cuts start at the bottom.

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

I'll take it that after midnight on a sunday you are not as coherent as you usually would be with that statement, public spending translates into pensions, welfare, child benefit etc......it sure aint gonna be made up from the top of the tree in the public sector payroll, all cuts start at the bottom.

hmmmm, it mightn't be the most popular thing to say but I actually think welfare and child benefit should be slashed to the bare minimum, and not because of the money it saves.
We've incentivised having children with single mothers' allowance etc., to the point that it's a situation that if you're poor and a no-hoper, the easiest way to increase your income is to have kids.
I know you have to provide some sort of allowance to combat serious poverty, but right now there's a fairly cushy livelihood to be made out of sitting on the single mothers' allowance and doing nothing. I think that's harmful in the long run to everyone.

The dole is also ridiculously high. If you're unemployed, you should be provided with food, shelter and basic rights (electricity, heating, water, etc) through the welfare state.
Seeing people going out buying pints at the weekend and affording to have a fairly decent social life while on the dole is an indicator that something is seriously wrong.

The thing is, if welfare is cut to the point of necessity, there is a lot more pressure on the government to actually run the country efficiently and profitably for all. Right now, there are thousands of people on the dole who are just waiting for things to get better etc.
That's just a way of putting people in a waiting room.

The cost of living is only going to substantially reduce when welfare is severely cut. And when the cost of living comes down, so can wages, and hence we will be a lot more competitive as a country. Our economy has priced us out of the market in so many areas regarding employment, so now is the time to swallow the pill and get it over with.

ianuss

I'd also add rent allowance to that list. In my former job I would have seen a lot of cases of people absolutely milking the system. One that still sticks in my mind is of a couple who, through various claims/'entitlements' (and I hate to use that word btw) were receiving ~€47,000 p.a.

That figure would equate to about €65k gross taking in to account tax, PRSI and levies. €65k without ever having to lift a finger!

I'd also suggest looking at the Data Protection Act too. Under the legislation there is no information sharing permitted between various state agencies, ie., Social Welfare staff are unable to report details to the Revenue Commisioner. Health service staff are unable to report welfare fraud. It's absolutely retarded!

Is mise le key

So we are agreed, acts of corruption & dishonesty have no place in a properly run country.

ianuss

Is mise le key wrote: »

So we are agreed, acts of corruption & dishonesty have no place in a properly run country.

Yes, absolutely.

Also, I can't see how the government can remain in power. By accepting the bailout cash they have effectively admitted that they've failed.

BaZmO*

jtsuited wrote: »

We've incentivised having children with single mothers' allowance etc., to the point that it's a situation that if you're poor and a no-hoper, the easiest way to increase your income is to have kids.

Is this annecdotal evidence and are there actual figures to back this up?

ianuss wrote: »

I'd also suggest looking at the Data Protection Act too. Under the legislation there is no information sharing permitted between various state agencies, ie., Social Welfare staff are unable to report details to the Revenue Commisioner. Health service staff are unable to report welfare fraud. It's absolutely retarded!

Be careful what you wish for.

Android 666

ianuss wrote: »

Never really been mad about their music but I loved their Fabric mix - I'd be interested to hear how the gig went.

Great gig in the end. Bit of a hipsterish crowd (Seriously, wtf is up with the patterned jumpers and sh¡t hair?) but James Murphy and the crew were pretty fecking excellent.

Is mise le key

Android 666 wrote: »

(Seriously, wtf is up with the patterned jumpers and sh¡t hair?) .

I have patterned jumpers & shave my own hair with a barbers razor,

Am i hip:D

ianuss

BaZmO* wrote: »

Is this annecdotal evidence and are there actual figures to back this up?



Be careful what you wish for.

Having worked in this area I would tend to agree with JT here - although I have no actual stats to back it up. Me and my colleagues used to always say that 'getting yourself some babies' was a career choice for some.


And I get your point about the DPA, but when you see fraud first hand and can't do anything about it, it really does break your heart.

jtsuited

BaZmO* wrote: »

Is this annecdotal evidence and are there actual figures to back this up?

well I don't actually need the figures because the there are mechanisms in the systems such as...

If you have a baby while living in certain social housing situations, you are moved into a larger place.

The state gives you money for having a child.

If that doesn't incentivise having children I don't know what does.
Add to that, the strikingly low abortion rates amongst the poor, and a fairly clear picture arises no?

Android 666

Is mise le key wrote: »

I have patterned jumpers & shave my own hair with a barbers razor,

Am i hip:D

No, hipsters don't have shaved heads. You'll have to try harder Is mise…

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Add to that, the strikingly low abortion rates amongst the poor, and a fairly clear picture arises no?

Did it ever cross your mmind that if you are very poor you cannot afford the fee & travel fee to have an abortion?

One thing you are missing also is that it actually costs money to bring up a child, if that money is being misspent & not being used for the benefit of the child then that is morally wrong & unaceptable but if not then the name is self explanitory & self justifying,

Child Benefit

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

Did it ever cross your mmind that if you are very poor you cannot afford the fee & travel fee to have an abortion?

Come on now. In reality, I very much doubt there are too many people around today as a result of their parents not being able to afford abortion.
And I base that on the fact that the amount of children being put up for adoption in the past 15 years has drastically dropped.
The fact is, having kids has been incentivised by the welfare state.

Is mise le key wrote: »

One thing you are missing also is that it actually costs money to bring up a child, if that money is being misspent & not being used for the benefit of the child then that is morally wrong & unaceptable but if not then the name is self explanitory & self justifying,

Child Benefit

Why should the state pay for children to be raised??

Speaking of child benefit. Every month for 18 years of my life my mother picked up a few quid because I existed. That's ludicrous considering it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, necessary.

ianuss

For some it is though. Don't know why they don't means test it.

jtsuited

ianuss wrote: »

For some it is though. Don't know why they don't means test it.

because the primary aim of a career politician is to get re-elected. taking money off people even if they don't need it is a sure way to not get re-elected. in the tax system it's different as the loss when taxes are increased is marginal compared to your net income.

But take away the monthly handout and people get far more pissed off.

ianuss

jtsuited wrote: »

because the primary aim of a career politician is to get re-elected. taking money off people even if they don't need it is a sure way to not get re-elected. in the tax system it's different as the loss when taxes are increased is marginal compared to your net income.

But take away the monthly handout and people get far more pissed off.

Ye, you're probably right. But are those who would not qualify based on a means test really going to vote one way or another over a few quid?

This is one of the reasons why I think poltics should be taught from an early age. We need to start producing responsible citizens, not an electorate of 'me feiners'. Change things from the bottom up, cos it's clearly not going to happen from the top down.

jtsuited

ianuss wrote: »

Ye, you're probably right. But are those who would not qualify based on a means test really going to vote one way or another over a few quid?

oh god yes. in fact they're the main demographic for deciding who wins an election.

Is mise le key

jtsuited wrote: »

Speaking of child benefit. Every month for 18 years of my life my mother picked up a few quid because I existed. That's ludicrous considering it was not, by any stretch of the imagination, necessary.

You seem to have missed the entire point of the post of mine you quoted & replied to with this above.

If the funds are being used for the benfit of the child & we have already agreed if that is a necessity & not for dishonest purposes then yes 100% it should be made available to the most needy from the state, thats the entire concept of a state that pay's taxes to ensure all its citizens are looked after & left in the gutter. you seem to be leaning towards an american style state with your last few posts which confuses me.

On another note,

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/green-party-to-announce-future-in-govt-482745.html

Android 666

Is mise le key wrote: »

On another note,

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/green-party-to-announce-future-in-govt-482745.html

Spineless bollixes should have pulled out 2 years ago…

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

You seem to have missed the entire point of the post of mine you quoted & replied to with this above.

If the funds are being used for the benfit of the child & we have already agreed if that is a necessity & not for dishonest purposes then yes 100% it should be made available to the most needy from the state, thats the entire concept of a state that pay's taxes to ensure all its citizens are looked after & left in the gutter. you seem to be leaning towards an american style state with your last few posts which confuses me.

if it's necessary then yes, however, and this is a big however, and difficult however, we cannot get into a situation where it's no big deal to have a kid if you can't provide for it without state aid.

even if it's honest, if there's not much incentive to not have children while broke, then we've got a serious problem on our hands.

It will continue to breed an underclass of leechers who don't even have to be dishonest to have state sponsored children who will go on to have more state sponsored children etc.

jimi_t2

Speaking of social welfare...

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

if it's necessary then yes, however, and this is a big however, and difficult however, we cannot get into a situation where it's no big deal to have a kid if you can't provide for it without state aid.

even if it's honest, if there's not much incentive to not have children while broke, then we've got a serious problem on our hands.

It will continue to breed an underclass of leechers who don't even have to be dishonest to have state sponsored children who will go on to have more state sponsored children etc.

But, but JT what about what Whitney says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KjpyHX7X-o

You're heart's just gone too cold. Don't you know that we need more Christinas, Britneys and Shakiras in this world?

Is mise le key

And their out,

http://greenparty.newsweaver.ie/19yqm470ahcnagng2rkjst?email=true

jtsuited

Is mise le key wrote: »

And their out,

http://greenparty.newsweaver.ie/19yqm470ahcnagng2rkjst?email=true

boom!

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

boom!

I'll see your boom and raise you boom sha lock lock boom!

electrogrimey

Y'all registered to vote yeah? I hear Enda Kenny spins some mean liquid d 'n' b.

Zascar

This is all pretty crazy. I'm struggling to keep up with this thread let alone all the Government/IMF/Green Party shenanigans!

Zascar

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1122/1224283833850.html

Yeah forget about trying anything else, lets all just get together and Pray that the financial crisis ends!!!