‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

. Seriously, you need to move on from the French Revolution now. Or read Peter McPhee's excellent book on the subject. I would suggest Eric Hobspawn on Revolutions but as he was a Marxist all that extreme leftiness and talk of the dialectic might distress you (it drives me spare!).

And really - for the last time. I did NOT compare the French Revolution to Dame Street - I used the French Revolution as an example of changes in societies brought about by people complaining! I also used the American Revolution, Stonewall Riots, Easter 1916 and Rosa Parks on the damn bus!

It's not remarkable to find more than half the population expressing dissatisfaction with a sitting government, especially during a period of economic recession and public spending cutbacks. In the USA at present, just 11 percent of the population is satisfied with the performance of Congress. In the UK in June, just 35 percent felt that the government was doing a good job, while 50 percent said they were doing a bad job.

89% unhappy with the US Congress -and Occupy camps are beginning in more US cities every day. Occupy camps are spreading across the UK too - perhaps it's a coincidence. I don't think so. Whether you like it or not (and I would suspect it is a big not) - this movement is growing and shows no sign of halting.

It's important to note that degrees of dissatisfaction also exist. The fact that 55 percent of the people are dissatisfied cannot be interpreted to mean that the country is poised on the brink of revolution.

Well, I think we can surmise that the crowds of people who have marched through Dublin and Cork two Saturdays in a row - plus those who have established Occupy Camp in Galway and Belfast it would appear that for an ever increasing percentage the degree of dissatisfaction is growing every day.


I never said the country was poised on the brink of Revolution - at least not a violent revolution- but I do think the potential is there for a political revolution.

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I see this whole 1% vs 99% nonsense is surfacing again

So according to @Bannasidhe the 1% are people who are satisfied with the government? Its interesting how this definition of this elusive 1% group keeps changing :rolleyes:

Got almighty you're starting to really piss me off. Would you look up the definition of "metaphor", 1% DOES NOT REFER TO A LITERAL STATISTIC, IT'S A SYMBOLIC METAPHOR, AS IS THE CENTRAL BANK AS A PROTEST LOCATION

Got it?
If you ask either of those questions again I for one will ignore them. I urge everyone else to do the same.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's what I said.



No offence, but exactly the same thing was said about the last round of protests, and the round before that. And protesting about the pain of a burst bubble when nobody protested the creation of the bubble remains unimpressive anyway - if anything, the less impressive the more people protest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the final time, it's not about the pain of the burst bubble. It's about the massive injustice in how that pain is being distributed versus who had a direct hand in causing the crisis.

When I see Seanie Fitz counting his change, shopping in Lidl and queuing up for unemployment benefit like so many victims of his and his bank's corrupt behaviour, then I will stop protesting.

As of right now, justice is not being served. The people whose corrupt actions played a substantial role in causing the mess are walking away with lots of the cash and none of the consequences.

And again, this isn't about practical solutions, I'm 100% aware that his money isn't going to get Ireland out of this situation, but I'm sickened by the fact that I, someone who wasn't even remotely involved in causing this disaster am being asked to pay for it, but the man whose fraud brought down a bank and took a huge chunk of the economy with it is having every blind eye turned to him by those who have the power to hold him accountable.

And he's just ONE example of someone in the 1%. Just one. There are so many I couldn't even count them. The amount of croneyism, corruption and buck passing among the political elite in this country is an absolute, utter, indefensible disgrace.

I don't mind being asked to contribute. But those whose deliberate corruption directly precipitated this situation damn well better be asked to contribute too.

Scofflaw

EI_Flyboy wrote:

Does having your vote ignored not count? How many times have we voted more than once on the European referanda...?

I'm afraid that's just a failure to understand how referendums work.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think many feel that the current system does render them 'otherwise precluded from having any influence on politics'. The last GE was an anomaly in terms of voter participation and much of it was an anger vote aimed against FF.

I'm afraid not - the previous general election turnout was 67.03%, and, again, 86% of those who voted voted for mainstream parties (again, I'm including SF there). And 42% of people voted for Fianna Fáil, which might explain their annoyance in 2011.

Look at the current Presidential election as well - Sean Gallagher is very visibly a product of one of our political parties, whatever about the strength of his current links, and the other candidates are largely so as well. Those that aren't - Norris, Davis, and Dana - are at the bottom of the pile.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now that FG/LP are full steam ahead with basically same policies as the previous government and U turning on their pre-election(while chanting the same its the IMF/ECB making us do it mantra) promises I reckon that feeling of being precluded from having any influence has intensified.

I'd agree that that's likely to annoy people, but it's still not the same as disenfranchisement. Over-promising and under-delivering has been a characteristic feature of voting for representatives probably since the Neolithic.

At the moment, it's a lot harder to influence the policies taken by the government because they really are subject to a very constraining set of circumstances. The reason - or part of the reason - we don't have Greek-style rioting and civil disobedience seems to be that people understand that.

So although I dislike the conclusion, I personally think that any reform movement needs to be realistic, and face the fact that the current system really does satisfy the majority of the public. As a result, 'popular' movements based on the idea that there is widespread public dissatisfaction just waiting to be tapped have foundered one after another, and I would see this one likely going the same way.

After all, here on this forum you're dealing with people who are pretty much pre-qualified in terms of interest in politics, yet it can hardly be said that people are queuing up to offer their support.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For the final time, it's not about the pain of the burst bubble. It's about the massive injustice in how that pain is being distributed versus who had a direct hand in causing the crisis.

When I see Seanie Fitz counting his change, shopping in Lidl and queuing up for unemployment benefit like so many victims of his and his bank's corrupt behaviour, then I will stop protesting.

As of right now, justice is not being served. The people whose corrupt actions played a substantial role in causing the mess are walking away with lots of the cash and none of the consequences.

And again, this isn't about practical solutions, I'm 100% aware that his money isn't going to get Ireland out of this situation, but I'm sickened by the fact that I, someone who wasn't even remotely involved in causing this disaster am being asked to pay for it, but the man whose fraud brought down a bank and took a huge chunk of the economy with it is having every blind eye turned to him by those who have the power to hold him accountable.

And he's just ONE example of someone in the 1%. Just one. There are so many I couldn't even count them. The amount of croneyism, corruption and buck passing among the political elite in this country is an absolute, utter, indefensible disgrace.

I don't mind being asked to contribute. But those whose deliberate corruption directly precipitated this situation damn well better be asked to contribute too.

That's not really justice so much as revenge, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said the country was poised on the brink of Revolution - at least not a violent revolution- but I do think the potential is there for a political revolution.

I wouldn't go that far, as per the post above, but I'd agree that we're in danger of wasting some potential for political change.

But I'll say it again - I don't think the sort of process represented by the Occupy movement here will yield much of direct consequence or value, if anything.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hayte

Right and thats fair enough. But you do realize that nobody ever achieved anything with that sort of attitude right?

I don't pretend that OWS is the panacea of financial and political reform but it is a positive paradigm. Its strategy and stated aim is constantly subject to change and it is an open dialogue. That alone makes it a far cry from what our representative democracy has become - beholden to special interests and incredibly opaque.

Scofflaw

Hayte wrote: »

Right and thats fair enough. But you do realize that nobody ever achieved anything with that sort of attitude right?

No, I don't "realise" that. In fact, I think the opposite.

Hayte wrote: »

I don't pretend that OWS is the panacea of financial and political reform but it is a positive paradigm. Its strategy and stated aim is constantly subject to change and it is an open dialogue. That alone makes it a far cry from what our representative democracy has become - beholden to special interests and incredibly opaque.

Funnily enough, our republic is quite openly beholden to special interests. Between them, though, those special interests represent most of the population.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Hayte wrote: »

Its strategy and stated aim is constantly subject to change and it is an open dialogue.

Would it be fair to say that it's for/against anything the "movement" decides it's for/against?

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The movement is strictly non-violent so if there are riots - it will not emanate from the Occupy movement.

So you say but do others agree?

EI_Flyboy wrote: »

Im not making a threat, I'm pointing out what I feel is obvious. If things continue the way they are, with more and more people percieving the status quo as grossly unfair and them taking to the streets, unless something is done to reverse that trend then riots are inevitable. Riots are even predicted in many IMF restructuring plans. You also make the mistake of failing to recognise that those on Dame street are only a small part of a global protest.



If things get heated, all that's needed is a spark. Plenty of those 1%ers are investing heavily in security so it can be argued that they're expecting the worst wherever it comes from. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/business/protests-are-a-payday-for-security-firms.html?_r=1

Besides, it's been show some of our Gards are without a huge respect for civil rights and it only takes one rotten apple whichever side of the fence it's on.

Small minority (seeminly anti-establishment) political movement rejecting democracy claiming to reach out to the real public backed by violence in the streets = Fascism.

If the violence happens as you predict, the only thing missing is a strong leader to unite the movement.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Got almighty you're starting to really piss me off. Would you look up the definition of "metaphor", 1% DOES NOT REFER TO A LITERAL STATISTIC, IT'S A SYMBOLIC METAPHOR, AS IS THE CENTRAL BANK AS A PROTEST LOCATION

Got it?
If you ask either of those questions again I for one will ignore them. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Oh will you please stop, the whole 1% did start out as the richest 1% in US

wikipedia wrote:

The participants' slogan "We are the 99% refers to income inequality in the United States between the top 1% who control about 40% of the wealth.

Now that I have shown that here in Ireland the situation is very different you are trying to change the meaning and weasel out of it
You know well if you used the word like the "elites" people would start rolling their eyes and think you are coming from the conspiracy theory forum, so you trying to change the meaning to suit yourself.
It is becoming quite clear now that the Occupy movement here in Ireland dont have a clue as to what they want, or a clear set of aims.

Even the SF who I disagree with on just about everything understand that they have to work within the democratic framework and laws of this country (having broken so many of them in past!), The occupy mob on the other hand is just that a mob, for it to become a political movement here in Ireland is has to grow up.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not really justice so much as revenge, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's not if you think about it. In an equal society, of equal human beings, justice denotes that those who commit crimes pay for them - regardless of who they are or what social group they belong to.

It also denotes that if, as we're being told, "everyone must share the pain", this must include the aforementioned clique.

It's not mere revenge. Justice is a fundamental aspect of any civilized society, and I don't want to live in a society where those at the top don't have to face it like the rest of us would.

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Oh will you please stop, the whole 1% did start out as the richest 1% in US

Have you ever heard of a little thing called "The Atlantic Ocean"?
It's a rather large body of saltwater, in which there is a plate boundary. Arguably, that plate boundary is what separates the continents of Europe and America, physically speaking.

And y'know, situations and circumstances on different sides of this ocean are not identical.

In other words: Stop relating everything to the US. Each country has different problems, inequalities, and injustices.
What's next, if an Occupy China movement springs up are you going to try and use the US criteria to define it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not if you think about it. In an equal society, of equal human beings, justice denotes that those who commit crimes pay for them - regardless of who they are or what social group they belong to.

It also denotes that if, as we're being told, "everyone must share the pain", this must include the aforementioned clique.

It's not mere revenge. Justice is a fundamental aspect of any civilized society, and I don't want to live in a society where those at the top don't have to face it like the rest of us would.

The problem there is this - if a society has not defined something as a crime before the fact, then anyone committing that act has no case to answer after the fact.

The Irish public for over a decade accepted a government that was publicly known to be soft on white-collar crime (see the ODCE saga), and treated that attitude on the part of the government as either a trivial issue, or as a reasonable part of a "business-friendly" strategy. The Irish public cannot therefore reasonably call for punishment after the fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Now that I have shown that here in Ireland the situation is very different you are trying to change the meaning and weasel out of it

I'm not in any way changing the meaning or trying to weasel away from anything. Look at my posts in the three threads we have now on this subject, in all of them I have defined the 1% in Ireland as the social/political elite clique which is protected above everyone else.

You know well if you used the word like the "elites" people would start rolling their eyes and think you are coming from the conspiracy theory forum, so you trying to change the meaning to suit yourself.

...

I have happily used the word "elites" in pretty much all of my posts on this subject, and I don't bat an eyelid whilst using it. If you want to pretend that we don't have croneyism that's your own choice, I suppose if it makes you feel better about the state of the country then so be it, but kindly don't bash those who recognize the blindingly obvious.

It is becoming quite clear now that the Occupy movement here in Ireland dont have a clue as to what they want, or a clear set of aims.

It's developing. Do you know how many different aims and factions there were at the start of IReland's fight for independence? There were people who wanted home rule (still being a UK dominion, just with a local parliament), there were people who simply wanted a better deal over land ownership and tenancy (The Land League), there were those who wanted a completely separate republic, there were those who wanted Ireland to control internal affairs and the UK to control foreign affairs, there were total Unionists, I could go on and on.
Stop expecting something so new to be resolved quickly. It's like how everyone started saying the Arab Spring was a failure because Libya's regime didn't topple in 48 hours like Egypt's and Tunisia's did. Most revolutions take years, why would this one be any different?

Even the SF who I disagree with on just about everything understand that they have to work within the democratic framework and laws of this country (having broken so many of them in past!), The occupy mob on the other hand is just that a mob, for it to become a political movement here in Ireland is has to grow up.

The "democratic" framework of this country is not democratic, as I have outlined time and time again in these threads. And I'm frankly tired of repeating myself. Read my previous posts. If it was democratic, we wouldn't have "teacher's pets". If it was democratic, there would be democratic accountability.

The framework itself needs to change before we can arrogantly declare that we have a functioning "democracy".

20Cent

Good article here explaining what its about.
Wall Street Isn't Winning – It's Cheating

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

The Irish situation is different to course but this affects us also.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem there is this - if a society has not defined something as a crime before the fact, then anyone committing that act has no case to answer after the fact.

The Irish public for over a decade accepted a government that was publicly known to be soft on white-collar crime (see the ODCE saga), and treated that attitude on the part of the government as either a trivial issue, or as a reasonable part of a "business-friendly" strategy. The Irish public cannot therefore reasonably call for punishment after the fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't see why not - this is a democratic country, supposedly, surely if enough of the people call for justice it would have to be looked into? I simply cannot accept the argument that we should allow these gangsters to walk away with the spoils while we pay for their actions. It's morally abhorrent. I don't see how anyone with a conscience can sit by and watch it happen with out at least trying to do something about it.

steve9859

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's what I said.



No offence, but exactly the same thing was said about the last round of protests, and the round before that. And protesting about the pain of a burst bubble when nobody protested the creation of the bubble remains unimpressive anyway - if anything, the less impressive the more people protest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

For the final time, it's not about the pain of the burst bubble. It's about the massive injustice in how that pain is being distributed versus who had a direct hand in causing the crisis.

When I see Seanie Fitz counting his change, shopping in Lidl and queuing up for unemployment benefit like so many victims of his and his bank's corrupt behaviour, then I will stop protesting.

As of right now, justice is not being served. The people whose corrupt actions played a substantial role in causing the mess are walking away with lots of the cash and none of the consequences.

And again, this isn't about practical solutions, I'm 100% aware that his money isn't going to get Ireland out of this situation, but I'm sickened by the fact that I, someone who wasn't even remotely involved in causing this disaster am being asked to pay for it, but the man whose fraud brought down a bank and took a huge chunk of the economy with it is having every blind eye turned to him by those who have the power to hold him accountable.

And he's just ONE example of someone in the 1%. Just one. There are so many I couldn't even count them. The amount of croneyism, corruption and buck passing among the political elite in this country is an absolute, utter, indefensible disgrace.

I don't mind being asked to contribute. But those whose deliberate corruption directly precipitated this situation damn well better be asked to contribute too.

In fairness to hatrickpatric, that is a good and valid reason to protest and one which I largely support. Unfortunately it is combined with a load of IMF out and anti capitalist nonsense, which unfortunately means that the sensible message is completely lost.

On a slightly related note, the dedication of your London peers seems in question. The thermal imaging picture on the front of the Times today shows only one tent occupied last night!!

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow. Just....... Wow. :eek:

You so desperately want to believe that the country is primed for some kind of glorious revolution that you're prepared to overlook the almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not. The Occupy movement is really nothing but a sideshow.

You're wrong. I don't believe, nor do I want to believe that the country is primed for a glorious revolution.
I believe that the entire world is primed for a revolution. All across the globe, it would seem, people are waking up, and they're seeing their corrupt and undemocratic leadership for what it is, and they've got something to say about it.

It's not just the Occupy movement. It's so many other things around the world. The Arab Spring, Wikileaks, The Tea Party in the US (I don't agree with anything they say but they're also up off their asses and actually trying to do something to further their visions), Anonymous, hell even that Marine who stood up in New York to protest against police brutality, and is now calling for Army vets to join the protest...

The world is changing. How much it will change, no one knows, but you absolutely cannot deny that something very profound is sweeping our world at the moment. Never before has there been such a moment of worldwide rebellion against concentrated power and corruption. Of sure, movements such as the Civil Rights movement in the US were a lot bigger, but the key word here is worldwide, international. This seems, to me, to be a moment of worldwide agitation. And it seems to be growing stronger rather than diminishing.

On the other hand, maybe I'm just too much of an optimist. Maybe I have too much faith that this time, things actually are going to change. Maybe my hope is misplaced and I will ultimately end up disappointed as you say I will.

But I'd sure as hell rather be overly optimistic than be a resigned pessimist like so many of ye naysayers are. "This sh!t sucks but there's nothing we can do about it, just bend over when they ask you to" - I can't imagine a more depressing theme by which to live.

Hey, if it works for you, it works for you. Each to his own.

hatrickpatrick

steve9859 wrote: »

In fairness to hatrickpatric, that is a good and valid reason to protest and one which I largely support. Unfortunately it is combined with a load of IMF out and anti capitalist nonsense, which unfortunately means that the sensible message is completely lost.

I'd just liketo state for the record that I am necessarily opposed to capitalism, as long as that capitalism applies to everyone entirely equally. No favourites, no special treatment for anyone. Either we all matter equally or none of us do; either everyone who makes mistakes deserves government intervention or nobody does. I don't accept that one social group is more worthy or important than another, I find that disgusting.

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The "democratic" framework of this country is not democratic, as I have outlined time and time again in these threads. And I'm frankly tired of repeating myself. Read my previous posts. If it was democratic, we wouldn't have "teacher's pets". If it was democratic, there would be democratic accountability.

Let's start with the labour party taking it's funding from the trade union movement so. They refuse to take the public sector to task for fear of losing their funding. This week impact have instructed their members in HSE west not to cooperate with the private management team being appointed to help run the hospitals in Galway. I'm waiting for somebody from labour to condemn this, but since the unions are directing labour policy I'm not holding my breath.

I voted FG in the last election in the hopes of keeping labour out of government because I believed the sacred cows of social welfare & public service pay wouldn't be touched and real public sector reform would not happen. The fact that I don't like the fact that labour are in government doesn't mean that it's not democratic. The voting population (or rather those that gave a damn) spoke.

I was under no illusion that FG & Lab would have to roll back on their promises because they were so blatantly aimed at buying the election. All the focus on the banks etc while not looking at the 12.5 billion current deficit (which does not include payments on national debt - that only added about 6.1 billion to the deficit).

By the way, for those of you with a short/selective memory FG & Lab to buy the election in 2007, when they announced that they would cut stamp duty after the election. They made the mistake of not waiting for the last week, as FF reacted the only way they could - promising the same thing. We, as a nation, voted status quo ante. Why? Why not - there was no good reason to change the government. After all public spending was going up and taxes were going down - things that people in general like to see.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Have you ever heard of a little thing called "The Atlantic Ocean"?
It's a rather large body of saltwater, in which there is a plate boundary. Arguably, that plate boundary is what separates the continents of Europe and America, physically speaking.

And y'know, situations and circumstances on different sides of this ocean are not identical.

In other words: Stop relating everything to the US. Each country has different problems, inequalities, and injustices.
What's next, if an Occupy China movement springs up are you going to try and use the US criteria to define it?

So remind me why you're calling it Occupy Wall Street again and what does the 99% signify here? Why not come up with a true number for Ireland rather than an arbitrary percentage "borrowed" from the US protests.

They have a lot more to be worried about than the nonsense demands of the people here. IMF out? yeah, ok then what?
Default on our loans and put the world into a bigger depression... seems totally logical.

hatrickpatrick

antoobrien wrote: »

Let's start with the labour party taking it's funding from the trade union movement so. They refuse to take the public sector to task for fear of losing their funding. This week impact have instructed their members in HSE west not to cooperate with the private management team being appointed to help run the hospitals in Galway. I'm waiting for somebody from labour to condemn this, but since the unions are directing labour policy I'm not holding my breath.

In my view, absolutely ALL political donations should be banned. All. That would go a long way to destroying the corporate and government axis (I'm not suggesting it would destroy it, but it would be one major nail in its coffin). Vested interests should not dictate government policy. The general public should dictate government policy.

I voted FG in the last election in the hopes of keeping labour out of government because I believed the sacred cows of social welfare & public service pay wouldn't be touched and real public sector reform would not happen. The fact that I don't like the fact that labour are in government doesn't mean that it's not democratic. The voting population (or rather those that gave a damn) spoke.

Here's my issue with this argument. It could be that you believe in what I'm about to say too and just aren't mentioning it, in which case I take back the following. But why attack the "sacred cows" of social welfare and PS pay, but not the "sacred cows" of bank bondholders, executives, golden circles, etc?

In my view, that elite is far MORE directly responsible for the mess we're in than the PS or people on welfare although I think all three need to come down. But that's the issue I have with it. Some people on social welfare are vulnerable and do need some support. No one who earned a six figure salary for the hard work of running a bank into the ground and then scarpering with the spoils when things got ugly can be described either as vulnerable or in need. By all means, reduce PS pay and reduce social welfare if it must be done - but not before every penny corrputly spent on gangsters is either recovered, or the perpetrators punished.

Ironically, I almost misspelled "perpetrators" as "perpetraitors".
I kinda wish I'd left the typo in there.

[quoteI was under no illusion that FG & Lab would have to roll back on their promises because they were so blatantly aimed at buying the election. All the focus on the banks etc while not looking at the 12.5 billion current deficit (which does not include payments on national debt - that only added about 6.1 billion to the deficit). [/quote]

And do you regard that as acceptable? Buying the election? Making false promises solely for the purpose of committing electoral fraud? In my view, this is precisely the kind of thing which needs to be stamped out before we can call ourselves a democracy.

Oh and don't give me the "it would fall apart if Politicians were requiredto keep their promises". Everyone who throws that one at me is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle - no one FORCES any politician to make promises. Can't keep it? Don't MAKE it in the first place. See Eamonn Gilmore's pathetic false statements over Lisbon, made, as revealed by Wikileaks, "for political reasons". It's disgusting. I wouldn't have given him any number on my ballot paper if I'd known about that prior to the election, as it happened I gave him my second preference.

By the way, for those of you with a short/selective memory FG & Lab to buy the election in 2007, when they announced that they would cut stamp duty after the election. They made the mistake of not waiting for the last week, as FF reacted the only way they could - promising the same thing. We, as a nation, voted status quo ante. Why? Why not - there was no good reason to change the government. After all public spending was going up and taxes were going down - things that people in general like to see.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the scandals in the banks came out in 2008, didn't they? After that election.
How many people would have voted different if those secrets had been aired earlier?

Yet another case for leaks and transparency.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So remind me why you're calling it Occupy Wall Street again

....We're not, we're calling it Occupy Dame Street.....

and what does the 99% signify here? Why not come up with a true number for Ireland rather than an arbitrary percentage "borrowed" from the US protests.

I've said it about a bajillion times here already, it signifies the social clique which dictates government policy and comes before everyone else. If Ireland was the Titanic and the government were the crew, the 1% are those who have the VIP lifeboats with buckets of legroom in which you could fit 20 other people, and who get instant access while everyone else has to queue and has no guarantee of actually getting into one before the ship goes down.

They have a lot more to be worried about than the nonsense demands of the people here. IMF out? yeah, ok then what?
Default on our loans and put the world into a bigger depression... seems totally logical.

Again, I've gone over this already. I'm not repeating myself again. Read back maybe 3-4 pages if you're using the standard page view.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd just liketo state for the record that I am necessarily opposed to capitalism, as long as that capitalism applies to everyone entirely equally. No favourites, no special treatment for anyone. Either we all matter equally or none of us do; either everyone who makes mistakes deserves government intervention or nobody does. I don't accept that one social group is more worthy or important than another, I find that disgusting.

So capitalism applies to everyone equally, no favourites, no special treatment for anyone.

Do you even understand what that means? If there is no special treatment for anyone, you would have to abolish social welfare as otherwise you would have to pay it to everyone in the country.

You could probably justify providing subsidised healthcare and education but no grants, no medical cards (unless everyone got one) i.e. everyone would have equal access to the state-provided healthcare.

Of course, the rich under your system (those who work hardest and earn the most under pure capitalism) could but their own healthcare and pension.

What you forget is that those who make mistakes or who don't succeed are rescued all the time by government intervention in our current system - the unemployed, the elderly who don't provide for their pension, the sick, the young etc. They all benefit from the social democratic system we have in place that provides a safety net.

Your system of capitalism is not for me, but then I don't think you understand what it means for you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hayte

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem there is this - if a society has not defined something as a crime before the fact, then anyone committing that act has no case to answer after the fact.

The Irish public for over a decade accepted a government that was publicly known to be soft on white-collar crime (see the ODCE saga), and treated that attitude on the part of the government as either a trivial issue, or as a reasonable part of a "business-friendly" strategy. The Irish public cannot therefore reasonably call for punishment after the fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

"The Irish public" is not a completely homogeneous entity that has an adhesion like contract with its elected representatives. Nevertheless, Irish citizens absolutely can call for punishment after the fact.

Politics in this country is incredibly opaque and for the last decade has had a frankly unhealthy relationship with construction and financial industry insiders in now infamous private forums as the FF Galway Races tent. There is no public register of lobby groups, and the language of legislation is thick with idiosyncrasy and jargon.

I would even go so far as to say that it is for the most part incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have a legal background because the legislature isn't designed to be read like a book or by a layman. It is designed to be consulted in the event that you have or anticipate a legal problem.

I cannot in good faith hold any citizen responsible for failing to understand the creation and application of policy in this country. You have to expend an enormous amount of effort to even learn the language of politics and law before you can even begin to translate this f**ked up language into actions taken in your own name. We traditionally relied upon the integrity of our elected representatives and an independent media to expose wrong doing but in recent years it appears as if both have a price and both can be bought.

Over the past 5 years I have spent a substantial amount of time in the High Court and am lucky enough to be paid to see the wheels of our Judiciary turning. One thing I note is that our Judges for the most part take great pains to ensure that the law is accessible to laymen, because it is our system and it was made to protect us. They are very lenient on lay litigants and will take the time to explain the process and to ensure matters of form are made clear to people who cannot be expected to know better.

I wish more people in this country had the time in their daily lives to see this. I think however that our legislature and our politicians are far less transparent in their dealings.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

....We're not, we're calling it Occupy Dame Street.....



I've said it about a bajillion times here already, it signifies the social clique which dictates government policy and comes before everyone else. If Ireland was the Titanic and the government were the crew, the 1% are those who have the VIP lifeboats with buckets of legroom in which you could fit 20 other people, and who get instant access while everyone else has to queue and has no guarantee of actually getting into one before the ship goes down.



Again, I've gone over this already. I'm not repeating myself again. Read back maybe 3-4 pages if you're using the standard page view.

I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.

ei.sdraob

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.

I am still waiting on a list of aims/goals

The the rhetoric we are hearing from this lot is confusing, non focused and in some cases contradicting.

They are comparing themselves to Arab Spring etc but all of those protesters have very clear aims and uniting goals, neither did any of them live in the oldest democracy of modern europe.

antoobrien

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's my issue with this argument. It could be that you believe in what I'm about to say too and just aren't mentioning it, in which case I take back the following. But why attack the "sacred cows" of social welfare and PS pay, but not the "sacred cows" of bank bondholders, executives, golden circles, etc?

I believe that the problems we are having with our finances would have happened anyways, the banks, golden circle et al. were merely the tipping point. They precipitated the problem sooner that it would have otherwise happened. They weren't the sole cause, as much as many people would like to paint it that way.

The reason that so many people are willing to accept this is so that they can salve their own consciences and allow them to delude themselves by saying "I didn't contribute to the mess we're in". I've some news for these people:
It doesn't matter that it wasn't intentional but everyone that bought so little as a pint of milk over the past 15 or so years participated in creating the mess we are in now.

How I hear you cry?

It's simple, every economy is driven by money (even the communist ones, which have thriving black/grey markets). In order to get into the Euro we can do harmonize interest rates across the Eurozone counties before 1/1/1999 (when the Euro currency came into force). This process started in 97/98 and interest rates dropped from over 6% to about 3%, meaning that cash was more easily available. Which meant that people borrowed more & spent this money on things like new cars (supported by the 1st scrappage scheme) and buying properties that were now affordable because their wages were rising.

We should have went into recession about 10 years ago when the tech bubble burst, but the construction industry had taken off at that stage and everybody wanted a bit of the action. It was a chance for farmers & landowners (e.g. farmers that were no longer farming) to set themselves up for life. As the economy expanded, the population boomed, so we actually needed a whole lot of new dwellings to be built.

The construction industry ended up underpinning the entire economy, eventually undermining it. Why did this happen? We the people allowed it to, through being willing to pay through the nose for properties (buy or rent, doesn't matter).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view, that elite is far MORE directly responsible for the mess we're in than the PS or people on welfare although I think all three need to come down. But that's the issue I have with it. Some people on social welfare are vulnerable and do need some support. No one who earned a six figure salary for the hard work of running a bank into the ground and then scarpering with the spoils when things got ugly can be described either as vulnerable or in need. By all means, reduce PS pay and reduce social welfare if it must be done - but not before every penny corrputly spent on gangsters is either recovered, or the perpetrators punished.

You still don't get it, even without the banking debts, we're still paying out far more than we're getting in. Here's an example: SW increased massively during the boom. In 2006 the spend was €7.1 billion. In 2008 it was €9.4 billion - this was before we started seeing the rise in unemployment. In 3 years there was a 32% increase in SW payments. In 2010 that figure was €13.1 billion (PAYE was over 14). Since 2003 current expenditure has increased by 60% (from about €30 billion to €48 billion)

As for the hard work of "running a bank into the ground", grow up. Nobody set out to do that.

While I do have a problem with the collection of bonuses etc they were legal so not a lot can be done. I believe that the main reason they are not being pursued is the can of worms it will open in employment law. What you are proposing is that an employer should be allowed to withold something that a worker is entitled to under contract. This will effectively make employment law null & void becuase employers will be under no obligation to pay workers a wage for their work.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ironically, I almost misspelled "perpetrators" as "perpetraitors".
I kinda wish I'd left the typo in there.

Good job you didn't. It's childish, unhelpful and undermines your argument.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

[quoteI was under no illusion that FG & Lab would have to roll back on their promises because they were so blatantly aimed at buying the election. All the focus on the banks etc while not looking at the 12.5 billion current deficit (which does not include payments on national debt - that only added about 6.1 billion to the deficit).

And do you regard that as acceptable? Buying the election? Making false promises solely for the purpose of committing electoral fraud? In my view, this is precisely the kind of thing which needs to be stamped out before we can call ourselves a democracy.[/quote]

Electoral fraud is rigging an election, so be very careful because that statement is slander and libel.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh and don't give me the "it would fall apart if Politicians were requiredto keep their promises". Everyone who throws that one at me is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle - no one FORCES any politician to make promises. Can't keep it? Don't MAKE it in the first place.

I do not expect that every election promise will be kept, as we can't see into the future so we don't know what changes might happen. E.g. make a promise to extend a school in Ballygobackwards, but don't because somebody finds some rare bog cotton on the land beside the school and objects to planning permission (while the neighbours scrounge a couple of gallons of petrol from the objector's car to remove the cause of the objection) preventing it from being built. Things change over the lifetime of governments.

I was realistic, the politicians weren't, so now it appears that I'm in the wrong for (a) not believing them and (b) being content that my estimate of what was going to happen has turned out to be far more accurate than the promises. I'm not going to hold them accountable to things that I didn't believe were practical in the first place.

Am I satisfied with government performance?
Is there a kinda option?

Do I think they're doing a bad job?
No not really, it's roughly going along the lines I expected. From the surveys (which are generally accurate, see press coverage of the last elections) a lot of the population are of a similar opinion.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

See Eamonn Gilmore's pathetic false statements over Lisbon, made, as revealed by Wikileaks, "for political reasons". It's disgusting. I wouldn't have given him any number on my ballot paper if I'd known about that prior to the election, as it happened I gave him my second preference.

Please feel guilty over backing Gilmore, but not for lying over Lisbon or whatever you're referring to.

Instead let it be for his role in undermining the economy through his support of the unions and his refusal to comment on just how bad a deal for the private sector the croke park agreement is (which freezes pay for PS workers, meaning that we have to increase taxes to pay for it).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the scandals in the banks came out in 2008, didn't they? After that election.
How many people would have voted different if those secrets had been aired earlier?

They didn't come out before the election, but then if the media reporting is to be believed the big problems happened after that election (transfers between anglo & the other banks to make balance sheets look good etc).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yet another case for leaks and transparency.

You're looking at things with perfect hindsight, which means revisionism. The problem with revisionism is that it's biased. The tent in Ballybirt is about as transparent as it gets, hell you could walk in and annoy frankeen on front of bertie about why the GCOB wasn't being built yet. In keeping with the revisionism bit, before 2007 it was seen as a quaint fundraiser but since 2009 it's the spawn of Satan.

In the further interests of transparency it's been pointed out often enough that FF (successfully) attempted to buy elections with the people's own money. It'd be remiss of me not to point out to the revisionists that FG & Labour have tried this in the past - that they failed is irrelevant.

Scofflaw

Hayte wrote: »

"The Irish public" is not a completely homogeneous entity that has an adhesion like contract with its elected representatives. Nevertheless, Irish citizens absolutely can call for punishment after the fact.

They can certainly call for it, but that doesn't make it justice. How can anyone know what is legal and what is not if they can be punished after the fact for something that wasn't a crime at the time?

Hayte wrote: »

Politics in this country is incredibly opaque and for the last decade has had a frankly unhealthy relationship with construction and financial industry insiders in now infamous private forums as the FF Galway Races tent. There is no public register of lobby groups, and the language of legislation is thick with idiosyncrasy and jargon.

I would even go so far as to say that it is for the most part incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have a legal background because the legislature isn't designed to be read like a book or by a layman. It is designed to be consulted in the event that you have or anticipate a legal problem.

I cannot in good faith hold any citizen responsible for failing to understand the creation and application of policy in this country. You have to expend an enormous amount of effort to even learn the language of politics and law before you can even begin to translate this f**ked up language into actions taken in your own name. We traditionally relied upon the integrity of our elected representatives and an independent media to expose wrong doing but in recent years it appears as if both have a price and both can be bought.

Over the past 5 years I have spent a substantial amount of time in the High Court and am lucky enough to be paid to see the wheels of our Judiciary turning. One thing I note is that our Judges for the most part take great pains to ensure that the law is accessible to laymen, because it is our system and it was made to protect us. They are very lenient on lay litigants and will take the time to explain the process and to ensure matters of form are made clear to people who cannot be expected to know better.

I wish more people in this country had the time in their daily lives to see this. I think however that our legislature and our politicians are far less transparent in their dealings.

On the whole, I agree with that. Keeping up with the process of legislative creation is a full-time and quite demanding job, and the Irish system is pretty opaque.

cordially,
Scofflaw

antoobrien

Somebody linked this over in the 1% thread.

Unlike a lot of the rhetoric that ha been spewed forth, this makes (a scary kind of) sense.

Occupy grandma's house

THE trouble with being a rebel without a cause is that people tend to project their causes on you. That seems to be the case with Occupy Wall Street (and its many local offshoots). The movement has gotten a great deal of attention, despite the absence of a clear objective, gripe or solution. Perhaps that’s what’s so fun about the movement; OWS allows everyone to make it about their favourite villain. For some, that's capitalism; for others, just the parts of capitalism they don’t like. Others get their kicks targeting the protestors. The popular interpretation of OWS is that its an outgrowth of class war: the 99% taking on the 1% who have all the wealth. It's rarely productive for one group of citizens to fight another over resources, because the game is so rarely zero-sum. But if I may be so presumptuous (pretty much everyone else is, so why not me?), I’d suggest that rather than singling out Wall Street fat cats for taking too much of the pie, the protestors look closer to home. Maybe they should look to their parents and grandparents.

A large part of the frustration downtown is probably driven by the fact that young people feel they've gotten a bad deal. The unemployment rate for those under 25 is 17.1%. There's evidence the recession will impact their wages for decades. But to some degree the trouble goes beyond current economic conditions. Some future economic problems are structural and much of the blame can be placed on older workers. Older generations aren't necessarily themselves to blame; shifting demographics and the current phase of globalisation mean there’s a chance many young people today will not enjoy the rise in prosperity their parents and grandparents did. The bill for pensions and retiree health care are set to take an increasing share of GDP, which means that fewer resources will go towards the young and their children. Spending fewer resources on capital that benefits current and future workers can have negative consequences for long-term growth.

Liabilities for state and local pensions are probably much larger than people realise, and the shortfall will likely come out of the pockets of the young and future workers. Or, as we’ve seen in places like Vallejo, California, savings will be achieved at the cost of fewer of the services used by the entire population. Buttonwood recently pointed out that any pension, even funded ones, is really a claim on future workers’ output. These claims are rising rapidly.

Another reason OWS may want to shift their focus is that the elderly (or at least the their most effective lobbby, the AARP) has declared war on them. Retirees recently marched on Washington demanding that Social Security and Medicare cuts not be included in any debt proposal. Yet, who is proposing that existing benefits be cut? Social Security benefits were actually just increased 3.6%, as part of the annual cost of living adjustment. If you read the fine print in most proposals I’ve seen, substantial benefit cuts affect people set to retire at least ten years from now and would have little impact on current or soon-to-be retirees. Is that what they’re protesting? AARP has historically fought any future benefit cuts (though recently they have changed tone and taken a controversial decision to be more open to the idea—as yet they have not endorsed any plan that involves benefit cuts), which implies that they’re counting on more revenue from future tax payers. They won’t even endorse raising the retirement age on future retirees. Recent history suggests that each new cohort lives longer than the last, so this means that each generation gets a longer retirement, while its children get stuck with a progressively bigger bill. Resistance among seniors to even engage in a serious discussion about entitlements makes reform poltically difficult. This is delays decisions, which makes the solution more expensive still for future taxpayers and retirees.

It seems ironic to me that retirees are marching on Washington as their grandchildren protest, concerned about their economic future. America and Europe are long overdue for entitlement reform precisely because the elderly are great at mobilising and wielding their political power. I suggest the OWS youth use this opportunity do the same.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Did it ever occur to you that the choice on offer in both countries is dismal? In the United States they are asked to choose between two parties. Both are, to my mind, an abomination. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for either. What are those with this view supposed to do? The party system itself is profoundly democratic, as evidenced by the UK's EU referendum vote. The MPs were not representing the people's wishes when they rejected it, they were representing their party leadership's wishes. That is not democracy.

Squatting in a tent demanding democracy is pointless if three-quarters of your peers can't be bothered even to vote.

I'm going to vote tomorrow, for Michael D.
I know three friends who aren't voting. And it's not because they "can't be bothered". It's because they regard absolutely all of the candidates as a joke, and the method used to select candidates as a joke. And I don't blame them.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

They can certainly call for it, but that doesn't make it justice. How can anyone know what is legal and what is not if they can be punished after the fact for something that wasn't a crime at the time?

Fiddling your company's accounts isn't a crime? Lending money from a company for people to buy shares in that company and artificially inflate the share price isn't a crime?
News to me.

On the whole, I agree with that. Keeping up with the process of legislative creation is a full-time and quite demanding job, and the Irish system is pretty opaque.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So what would YOU propose to open it up? You're opposed to movements like Wikileaks for example, how would you force transparency on people who's natural instinct seems to be talking utter sh!te, anything but the actual truth?

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Worst straw man EVER.

I'm talking specifically about investment here. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
If I walk into a bookies and make a bet on a horse, and that horse doesn't win, do I expect the Irish taxpayer to pay me back? WOULD the Irish taxpayer pay me back if I asked them to?

Replace "bookies" with "investment bank" and "horse" with "bond", and suddenly the Irish taxpayer WILL be forced to repay you.

That's not equality. If we bail out some speculators we bail out all of them, otherwise we're playing favourites. Croneyism. Bailouts for buddies.
Do you think Anglo would have been rescued if the people who had stakes in it weren't personal friends of FF's leadership?

Furthermore, the most vulnerable in our society need help to survive.

There's a difference between needing help to survive and needing help to fund your helicopter refuellings.

People who make six figure salaries and were directly responsible for the practises which led to the crash can well afford to contribute to fixing it, and should be asked to contribute far more than anyone else.

It's their mess. Not yours. Not mine. If we're going down and they're not, it's like, as I said in another topic, the people who crashed the Titanic having a VIP lifeboat to get away on while their passengers drown due to their folly. It's disgusting on every possible level.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.

Holding people to account isn't a thought out goal? Seeing justice served isn't a thought out goal? Forcing those who caused the problem to clean it up rather than passing the buck to innocent people like you and me isn't a thought out goal?

Strange, because I've been thinking it out ever since the last government refused to name and shame the Golden Circle.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Holding people to account isn't a thought out goal? Seeing justice served isn't a thought out goal? Forcing those who caused the problem to clean it up rather than passing the buck to innocent people like you and me isn't a thought out goal?

Strange, because I've been thinking it out ever since the last government refused to name and shame the Golden Circle.

No, they're vague and simple catchphrases with little to no substance or meaning.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fiddling your company's accounts isn't a crime? Lending money from a company for people to buy shares in that company and artificially inflate the share price isn't a crime?
News to me.

If there's a case to answer on those there's a case to answer - and if not, not. Believing them to be the case is neither here nor there.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So what would YOU propose to open it up? You're opposed to movements like Wikileaks for example, how would you force transparency on people who's natural instinct seems to be talking utter sh!te, anything but the actual truth?

Er, I'm a regular Wikileaks reader and donor. Put down the black paint for a moment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, they're vague and simple catchphrases with little to no substance or meaning.

Holding people to account for their actions is a vague catchphrase?

What more do you want? Can I put it a different way then:

Those who committed actions which broke the rules, must face the consequences for breaking those rules.
Those whose actions, whether illegal or illegal directly led to many of the problems, should bear the heaviest cost of fixing those problems.
Those who lied, made corrupt and deliberately dishonest decisions, or put their friends before the rest of the nation, must also be held to account and penalized for it.

This is not about revenge. It's about utterly destroying the concept of power as it stands, to make sure that no government will ever DARE to behave in this manner ever, ever again. The people run this. This is a republic. Those who we elect to represent us better actually represent us or they can get the hell out of their offices.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

If there's a case to answer on those there's a case to answer - and if not, not. Believing them to be the case is neither here nor there.

And if so, WHEN will it be answered? When will it even be investigated? When will we actually see action being taken against these individuals by the state?

Er, I'm a regular Wikileaks reader and donor. Put down the black paint for a moment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

O_O :eek:

Whoa, who am I thinking of then? I could've sworn it was you who defended governments keeping policy secrets and lying to the public about them? It was definitely a mod in either Politics or European Union, my profoundest apologies if it wasn't you. Seriously... That's a major screwup on my part if I am in fact wrong.

hatrickpatrick

antoobrien wrote: »

I believe that the problems we are having with our finances would have happened anyways, the banks, golden circle et al. were merely the tipping point. They precipitated the problem sooner that it would have otherwise happened. They weren't the sole cause, as much as many people would like to paint it that way.

Where did I say they were the sole cause? Reckless lending was the main cause - still not the sole cause. But they WERE largely responsible for the collapse in Anglo's share price and the eventual collapse of the bank, which is why its €60bn in debts is now our responsibility to sort out.

The reason that so many people are willing to accept this is so that they can salve their own consciences and allow them to delude themselves by saying "I didn't contribute to the mess we're in". I've some news for these people:
It doesn't matter that it wasn't intentional but everyone that bought so little as a pint of milk over the past 15 or so years participated in creating the mess we are in now.

How I hear you cry?

It's simple, every economy is driven by money (even the communist ones, which have thriving black/grey markets). In order to get into the Euro we can do harmonize interest rates across the Eurozone counties before 1/1/1999 (when the Euro currency came into force). This process started in 97/98 and interest rates dropped from over 6% to about 3%, meaning that cash was more easily available. Which meant that people borrowed more & spent this money on things like new cars (supported by the 1st scrappage scheme) and buying properties that were now affordable because their wages were rising.

We should have went into recession about 10 years ago when the tech bubble burst, but the construction industry had taken off at that stage and everybody wanted a bit of the action. It was a chance for farmers & landowners (e.g. farmers that were no longer farming) to set themselves up for life. As the economy expanded, the population boomed, so we actually needed a whole lot of new dwellings to be built.

The construction industry ended up underpinning the entire economy, eventually undermining it. Why did this happen? We the people allowed it to, through being willing to pay through the nose for properties (buy or rent, doesn't matter).

I accept all that as a large part of the cause, however I have serious issues with it:

1. It was government policy which helped to fuel this - government policy driven by jobs for the boys and friends helping friends. You can't deny that many of FFs actions in power were straight up corruption - doing things which affect the entire nation for the benefit of their political clique.

2. It was banking policy which allowed subprime lending to reach the insane levels it did. Where the hell was the regulator? Why was this allowed? Why weren't the people whose job it was to oversee the banks, not actually doing their jobs?

3. Not everyone is an economist. Not everyone knows how these bubbles work - I must admit I didn't until after it happened and I read up on how it all happened. The regulators (and indeed those who run the financial system) do. They are there to oversee and control it, and they chose not to do so.

You still don't get it, even without the banking debts, we're still paying out far more than we're getting in. Here's an example: SW increased massively during the boom. In 2006 the spend was €7.1 billion. In 2008 it was €9.4 billion - this was before we started seeing the rise in unemployment. In 3 years there was a 32% increase in SW payments. In 2010 that figure was €13.1 billion (PAYE was over 14). Since 2003 current expenditure has increased by 60% (from about €30 billion to €48 billion)

As for the hard work of "running a bank into the ground", grow up. Nobody set out to do that.

No, it was just a side effect of sheer criminality and corruption. Have you actually read this yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank_hidden_loans_controversy
And yes I know Wiki isn't reliable, but this article has links to numerous articles from other sources.

While I do have a problem with the collection of bonuses etc they were legal so not a lot can be done. I believe that the main reason they are not being pursued is the can of worms it will open in employment law. What you are proposing is that an employer should be allowed to withold something that a worker is entitled to under contract. This will effectively make employment law null & void becuase employers will be under no obligation to pay workers a wage for their work.

No I'm not, I am suggesting that these people committed crimes (see link above) and that therefore the government should fire them - not make them resign but literally throw them out. Then get the criminal assets bureau after them - isn't it there to reclaim the proceeds of crime?

Good job you didn't. It's childish, unhelpful and undermines your argument.

This is a pretty intense debate, we're allowed a LITTLE humour, dammit

Electoral fraud is rigging an election, so be very careful because that statement is slander and libel.

From dictionary.com:
Fraud:
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

In my view, saying something which you know at the time is a blatant lie because it will get people to vote for you, is stealing votes. It's getting elected on completely and knowingly false premises. I regard myself as having been defrauded of my vote due to the secrecy over gilmore's lies - had I known of that cable before the election, I wouldn't have even given him a preference. Instead he got my second.

I do not expect that every election promise will be kept, as we can't see into the future so we don't know what changes might happen. E.g. make a promise to extend a school in Ballygobackwards, but don't because somebody finds some rare bog cotton on the land beside the school and objects to planning permission (while the neighbours scrounge a couple of gallons of petrol from the objector's car to remove the cause of the objection) preventing it from being built. Things change over the lifetime of governments.

You don't get it, do you? This isn't about an election promise which he wasn't able to keep. This is about a statement he made in public, then immediately told the US ambassador "Don't worry that's bullsh!t, I have no intention of opposing the second referendum I'm just saying that for political reasons".

This is absolutely despicable and it's exactly what's wrong with our alleged "democracy".

I was realistic, the politicians weren't, so now it appears that I'm in the wrong for (a) not believing them and (b) being content that my estimate of what was going to happen has turned out to be far more accurate than the promises. I'm not going to hold them accountable to things that I didn't believe were practical in the first place.

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to hold them accountable for making the promises at all unless they knew they could keep them.

My view is, if there's even a shred of doubt about it, tell people that. Don't say "This will happen" if the truth is "This will [hopefully] happen".

If you don't want to get caught with your trousers down, don't leave your house unless you know your belt is on.

Am I satisfied with government performance?
Is there a kinda option?

Do I think they're doing a bad job?
No not really, it's roughly going along the lines I expected. From the surveys (which are generally accurate, see press coverage of the last elections) a lot of the population are of a similar opinion.

I wasn't asking you that. I was asking are you satisfied with being lied to in order to trick you into voting for someone?

Please feel guilty over backing Gilmore, but not for lying over Lisbon or whatever you're referring to.

Why shouldn't I? He's a liar. I don't accept that lying knowingly is ever justified when one holds a public office (or indeed when one doesn't).

Instead let it be for his role in undermining the economy through his support of the unions and his refusal to comment on just how bad a deal for the private sector the croke park agreement is (which freezes pay for PS workers, meaning that we have to increase taxes to pay for it).

Fair enough. What about his silence over the 1% as outlined above? Where has he categorically stated that those who made the mess shouldn't be profiting for it? Where has he commented on how bondholders don't deserve to be repaid if ordinary mortgage holders aren't going to be bailed out too?

They didn't come out before the election, but then if the media reporting is to be believed the big problems happened after that election (transfers between anglo & the other banks to make balance sheets look good etc).

And therein lies the problem with the democratic system. The citizenry should be able to impeach a government at any time by extreme popular demand rather than allowing them to do as much damage as possible for five totally powerless years. That's where the demand for "participatory democracy" comes into play.

You're looking at things with perfect hindsight, which means revisionism. The problem with revisionism is that it's biased. The tent in Ballybirt is about as transparent as it gets, hell you could walk in and annoy frankeen on front of bertie about why the GCOB wasn't being built yet. In keeping with the revisionism bit, before 2007 it was seen as a quaint fundraiser but since 2009 it's the spawn of Satan.

If all of this had been public knowledge when it was happening there would be no need for hindsight. That part of my post was primarily aimed at Scoffy who bashes wikileaks and insists that governments have a right to withhold important information from the people.

In the further interests of transparency it's been pointed out often enough that FF (successfully) attempted to buy elections with the people's own money. It'd be remiss of me not to point out to the revisionists that FG & Labour have tried this in the past - that they failed is irrelevant.

Of course it is, which is why I'm bashing the entire party system, not just FF, and refusing to engage in a system which I regard to be corrupt, not just on the surface but to its very core.

I'm not denying that people may have started out with good intentions, but such good intentions pave the roadway to the gates of hell. It has to go.

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And therein lies the problem with the democratic system. The citizenry should be able to impeach a government at any time by extreme popular demand rather than allowing them to do as much damage as possible for five totally powerless years. That's where the demand for "participatory democracy" comes into play.

So because you want this change to our democracy, the entire system "has to go"?

We'd be having an election every second week if you got your way.

Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view, saying something which you know at the time is a blatant lie because it will get people to vote for you, is stealing votes. It's getting elected on completely and knowingly false premises. I regard myself as having been defrauded of my vote due to the secrecy over gilmore's lies - had I known of that cable before the election, I wouldn't have even given him a preference. Instead he got my second.

How naive an attitude is this? I hate to break it to you, but people don't always tell the truth. Not just politicians, everyone. Life is going to be an awful disappointment if you go around with this attitude.

This is absolutely despicable and it's exactly what's wrong with our alleged "democracy".

Show me the political system where the politicians are 100% honest.

You get to vote for someone else at the next election if you think a politician lied for your vote. That's life.

I wasn't asking you that. I was asking are you satisfied with being lied to in order to trick you into voting for someone?

More fool you if you voted for someone who you think lied. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the anarchy and collapse of "the system" because you were naive?

I'm not denying that people may have started out with good intentions, but such good intentions pave the roadway to the gates of hell. It has to go.

It's like listening to failed property investors whinging for a bailout. "No-one told me property prices could fall, estate agents lied to me, I was told I'd be rich bwaaaaaaaaaaa".

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

How naive an attitude is this? I hate to break it to you, but people don't always tell the truth. Not just politicians, everyone. Life is going to be an awful disappointment if you go around with this attitude.

So in other words, you're OK with politicians directly and knowingly lying to the public to trick them into giving them votes? You don't find that outrageous?

Show me the political system where the politicians are 100% honest.

A system where they know their lies will be published if put in writing, perhaps? A system wherein a politician can be penalized if it can be proven in writing that they knew what they were saying was untrue when they spoke to the media about a matter of public importance?

You get to vote for someone else at the next election if you think a politician lied for your vote. That's life.

That's a sh!tty system. I have to wait FIVE YEARS knowing that our Tanaiste, our second in command, is a dishonest liar. The general public had to put up with FF for two years after the bailout despite their shambolically low approval rating.

I am calling for a mechanism for citizens to impeach a government. That does not mean elections every two weeks. That means that in extreme circumstances, the people, by referendum, can call for an election.

More fool you if you voted for someone who you think lied. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the anarchy and collapse of "the system" because you were naive?

More fool me? Do you think I'm a psychic? Did you know Gilmore had lied about this? IF so, how did you know?

It's like listening to failed property investors whinging for a bailout. "No-one told me property prices could fall, estate agents lied to me, I was told I'd be rich bwaaaaaaaaaaa".

Well they're being bailed out, AGAIN by the Irish taxpayer. Where's the NAMA for people in negative equity? Oh yeah sorry, help is only for the people who are in the government's pocket. The 1%, in other words.

davoxx

hmmm wrote: »

Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.

some people do.
and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

we did elect full time politicians and we did leave them to do the job, but they messed up.

it's like leaving kids to cook meals because you want to watch tv.

you have to have take responsibility and if that means more effort and time, so be it ...

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

So because you want this change to our democracy, the entire system "has to go"?

We'd be having an election every second week if you got your way.

Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.

Except as you said in a previous post, you're ok with them pretending to "represent our views" until they're guaranteed a seat for 5 years in which case all pretense falls apart and they reveal their true colours.

Imagine if Stalin had run on a platform you believed in, and then when in power it turned out it was all lies. Imagine he ran on a capitalist platform and then simply turned around and said "I'm in power now, I can do whatever I want, forget what I said before let's nationalize everything asap".
Are you saying that you'd resign yourself to his policies because you should have known better? You wouldn't fight to get rid of him? Seriously?