What planet are they on ?

hallelujajordan

Desire2 wrote: »

Amazing then that so many people responded.

Only demonstrates that Liam is not alone in his desire to whinge.

Desire2 wrote:

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

Thank you for the history lesson although I am lost as to its relevance in this debate ??

Desire2 wrote:

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?

When an objection is based on fact and when it is backed up by some alternative and realistic suggestions about how the deficit can be tackled then it is appropriate..

When it is objecting for the sake of objecting, factually less than accurate and not supported by any reasonable alternative suggestion then it is whinging.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Like I said in the beginning, a thread with no other purpose than to have a whinge.

Good to see that the old FF trait of not giving a crap about what real people have to endure is alive and well.

No-one proved anything in relation to petrol prices, because the FACT is that due to years of crap planning and buying and selling of land near were meant to be bypasses, it is impossible to survive without a car.

And the point remains re what McDowell said regarding necessities being zero VAT.

You can dismiss it all you want; you're wrong.

I have clearly shown how the new taxes are a massive proportion of a basic income, but I'm not exactly surprised that an FF member ignores real people - maybe I should follow your former hero's words and stop stating facts, so that you lot can ignore them again ? Look where that got us last time.

Liam Byrne

U

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Desire2 wrote: »

Amazing then that so many people responded.

Only demonstrates that Liam is not alone in his desire to whinge.

Desire2 wrote:

The reason there is no VAT on Childrens footware is that the late Jim Kemmy brought down Garret Fitzgeralds Govt when John Bruton tried to introduce it in a budget.
that was a previous recession,i thank some kind of a higher power that FG never received a majority or there would not be even a trace left of compassion in Irish Society.( mind you M Thatcher claimed "there is no such thing as society)

Thank you for the history lesson although I am lost as to its relevance in this debate ??

Desire2 wrote:

since when did objecting to what is going on in your Country become "Whinging"?

When an objection is based on fact and when it is backed up by some alternative and realistic suggestions about how the deficit can be tackled then it is appropriate..

When it is objecting for the sake of objecting, factually less than accurate and not supported by any reasonable alternative suggestion then it is whinging.

Alternatives are in short supply given your party's irresponsible f**kups re regulation, Croke Park, the HSE, the bank bailout and the "IMF are not coming" lies.

I guess I should stick to "facts" such as "the boom is getting boomier" and "I wan dat on de horsies" :rolleyes:

Accusations re "whinging" from the sidelines were trotted out by that corrupt idiot too, and you defended him at the time.

"Whinging", "bashing", "attacks" and "burning" - how many more words does the FF dictionary have to describe "valid objections" ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Good to see that the old FF trait of not giving a crap about what real people have to endure is alive and well.



No-one proved anything in relation to petrol prices, because the FACT is that due to years of crap planning and buying and selling of land near were meant to be bypasses, it is impossible to survive without a car.

And the point remains re what McDowell said regarding necessities being zero VAT.

You can dismiss it all you want; you're wrong.

I have clearly shown how the new taxes are a massive proportion of a basic income, but I'm not exactly surprised that an FF member ignores real people - maybe I should follow your former hero's words and stop stating facts, so that you lot can ignore them again ? Look where that got us last time.

Rubbish . . You have absolutely no reason to suggest that I do not care about what 'real' people have to endure. . . nor do you have any basis for your contention that you are closer to the 'real people' than I am . .(btw, thats an interesting concept . . what are the people who are not real ??)

I certainly do care about the country and the people (the real ones and the rest of us!!) . . however, the fact of the matter is that we have a deficit that has to be corrected. . . and in order to correct it we need to raise more revenue in taxes . . there are few palatable ways to increase tax revenue at the moment but increasing the higher rate of VAT which McDowell correctly identifies as applying largely to optional expenditure is as fair an increase as one can bring about right now. .

If you can suggest a better way of doing it, then lets debate it . . if not, your thread is little better than a whinge.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dannyboy83

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The point is that the regulator should have kept a reign on the amount of capital Irish banks were borrowing on the international markets. Similar to how insurance companies function, the banks should have had a percentage assets to cover liabilities. Rolling over debt is fine in a period of sustained growth but the model was broken once reserves meant nothing. The regulator did little to nothing. If I remember correctly around 2004 the Swedish government argued we should be putting in place counter cyclical policies. Instead of this regulation was non existant.

Figure 1. Bank lending to households and non-financial firms as a percentage of GDP (GNP for Ireland), 1997 and 2008

I fail to understand why it takes a professor from UCD to point out to these guys that there may be a slight problem.......................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
then again - does anybody remember Christian Pauls?


Lets recall the arrogance of Fianna Fail:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ireland-rebukes-scornful-german-envoy/story-e6frg6to-1111114439690
IRELAND is a coarse place with a sad history where the natives are obsessed by money. That, at least, is the view of the German ambassador to Dublin.

Christian Pauls earned a rare official rebuke from the Irish Government after he aired his opinions before a group of 80 German industrialists, many of whom were potential investors in the Celtic Tiger economy.

Mr Pauls poured scorn on Ireland's recent affluence and its Government, telling his audience at Clontarf Castle in Dublin that "junior ministers earn more than the German Chancellor" and that "20 per cent of the population are public servants" - neither of which is true.

He described the country's health service as chaotic, with hospital waiting lists that would not be tolerated elsewhere.

And he revealed his amazement that Irish doctors who were offered annual salaries of E200,000 ($330,000) to work in the public sector turned their noses up at what they called "Mickey Mouse money".

His comments, made in German and translated into English for the small gathering of Irish present, produced guffaws from the ambassador's countrymen but infuriated Gay Mitchell, a European parliament member for Dublin.

He was so alarmed by Mr Pauls' remarks that at one point he interjected, "Mr Ambassador, I am the next speaker", as a warning to him to moderate his comments.

Dermot Gallagher, secretary-general of Ireland's Department of Foreign Affairs, was ordered by Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern to issue a formal protest.

Government sources said Mr Gallagher had a frosty conversation with Mr Pauls late last week in which it was made clear that his comments were "inaccurate, misinformed and inappropriate at a public forum".

Mr Mitchell said the ambassador's performance had been appalling. "In my view, he did a number on Ireland and the Irish.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What a ridiculous statement.

What the banks did in search of a quick buck proves point-blank that most commercial operations cannot be relied on to act ethically and fairly when left to their own devices, unregulated.

I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

The question of who should regulate them - given the corruption and self-interest that also exists in power - is a separate issue, but the fact remains that they cannot be trusted to act appropriately under their own steam, which you advocate as the solution to all evils at every opportunity.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah yes - throw in the word "populist" at every opportunity when you don't want to acknowledge a fact. Just because lots of people can see something doesn't make it false.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

False. It wouldn't matter what policies the ECB had if the banks had copped themselves on and behaved.

A bank offered me twice what I could afford at one stage; I said no. The policy that someone else has is irrelevant because I behaved correctly.

You are just passing the buck.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You were talking about private banks - not sovereigns. Why change the subject ?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

At least we agree on something. But likewise those in other ivory towers who contribute little to society also deserve a reality check.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry - if we don't pay competitive salaries to politicians or doctors they may go elsewhere too. And the banks - through their own stupidity and corruption - are now part of the public service.

So as I said earlier, you can't have it both ways.

The rules of your beloved capitalism imply that if you don't have the money, you can't pay.

The banks DO NOT have the money; they therefore - by your rules - cannot pay.

In fact, they banks are - to coin a phrase - on social welfare.

Tough for you to stomach, but - unlike most decent people laid off or with wages cut so that their CEO can still swan around in their Lexus and go golfing - it's their own actions that led them to this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Assuming that I'm working in the city centre, and ignoring a possible 25 mile commute.



Don't have a 05 car, despite the attempts to make taking out a loan to upgrade more appealing.



Don't have a 1.8L engine



Don't have 2 cars.



Distance isn't less than 5km.

So of your 4 points, despite your attempt to imply that you were looking for the norm and not the extreme exception, not ONE of your 4 points is relevant in my case. This is the dismissive attitude that I was referring to - normal people trying to have a life are being shafted in order to fund the unsustainable lifestyles of those at both extremes of the spectrum, and it's sickening.



I think the question needs to be asked of the likes of McDowell as to what they think a typical person is.....they certainly have no idea what life they're imposing on people.



.

Sell the house, rent closer to the job, that is what a German or Dutch person would do.

Because of our mania with property, people think that once they decide where they want to live, they should have an entitlement to live there in an affordable house with a job in reasonable access (or a car to get them to a job) and with all services provided free and local, no matter the cost or distance by the local authority, the health service and the postal service.

In the rest of Europe, you don't build a bungalow on the side of a hill in the middle of nowhere. You rent a house or apartment close to the job you have got (or close to public transport to get to that job) and close to the amenities and services that you want for you and your family, be it broadband, hospitals, schools, universities, parks etc.

The cultural shift required in Ireland is so great that there will be a lot of people who just don't get it.

dsmythy

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I have to say though, I think the reason Irish banks are underperforming is because the bonuses arent big enough.

If we paid the bankers bigger bonuses they'd do much better.

And if we made their basic salary several million they'd do even better again.

For an excellent example look at a major Irish bank named Anglo Irish Bank.

Try Nationwide too.

Oh wait, theres a few others.

The point is, if we pay bankers more money the banks do better. It's that simple. Empirical evidence proves it.

And all the right wingers who keep screaming about this should be applauded for their defense of this pillar of the banking system -- pay the banker more, the bank does better

Kind of like the increase in teachers' pay up to 2008 bringing about a poorer performance from our schools. Paying teachers more doesn't mean better performance so we should claw some of it back. Same goes for 'bankers'.

On the VAT I don't think increasing it helps us much at all although I'd like to see how the increase in the UK affected overall spending and VAt takes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Roosevelt paid his advisers a dollar a year. A million a year doesn't get you the best people in banking if those people are motivated solely by money.
If we don't demand Patriotism and Sacrifice we will never get Patriotism and Sacrifice.
Frankly we have had a decade with the socially liberal and pro free market Progressive Democrats in government. This party Ireland's equivalent of the American Libertarians have left an appalling legacy.

Valmont

swordofislam wrote: »

This party Ireland's equivalent of the American Libertarians have left an appalling legacy.

Ireland's decade of libertarianism? Was it the libertarians in Ireland who bailed out the banks and added over 65,000 workers to the state's ranks? I think you misunderstand libertarianism even more than those posters who are usually on the receiving end of the accusation.

I have an idea for a sacrifice - why don't you give everything you own to the Irish state? If you're a patriot I'm sure you'll have no problem with that.

jmayo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Jeeze you must really enjoy the roads of Donegal.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...
The ONLY reason that the state has to run the banks at this stage is because those running them were incapable of doing so - DESPITE half-a-million and more salaries.

Correction the CEOs of the top 3 banks that were "saved" by the taxpayer (Anglo, AIB, BOI) were paid in excess of 2 million and look how good a job they did. :mad:

jasonc5432 wrote: »

I have to say though, I think the reason Irish banks are underperforming is because the bonuses arent big enough.

Yeah lets give them bonuses for lending like the good old days of 2002 to 2007.

jasonc5432 wrote: »

If we paid the bankers bigger bonuses they'd do much better.

Yeah they did a fantastic job during the boom when they were on 6 figure bonuses.
They did such a great job they helped bankrupt the state. :rolleyes:

jasonc5432 wrote: »

And if we made their basic salary several million they'd do even better again.

For an excellent example look at a major Irish bank named Anglo Irish Bank.

Try Nationwide too.

Oh wait, theres a few others.

The point is, if we pay bankers more money the banks do better. It's that simple. Empirical evidence proves it.

And all the right wingers who keep screaming about this should be applauded for their defense of this pillar of the banking system -- pay the banker more, the bank does better

You should use the sarcasm icon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think even I could do that!

swordofislam

Valmont wrote: »

Ireland's decade of libertarianism? Was it the libertarians in Ireland who bailed out the banks and added over 65,000 workers to the state's ranks?

Of course it was.
Mary Harney and the rest of the light touch brigade did what any libertarian would do and voted to protect their own personal interests. Also they lost their nerve when they saw that libertarianism/ neoliberalism whatever you want to call it doesn't work in the real world.

You are engaging in a Nirvana fallacy that because one decision was non libertarian the PD/ FF government was non libertarian.

In the real world politicians make compromises and libertarian politicians will make the compromises that protect their owners.

Suryavarman

swordofislam wrote: »

Roosevelt paid his advisers a dollar a year.

And how did that work out for him again?

A million a year doesn't get you the best people in banking if those people are motivated solely by money.

Well the best bankers surely aren't motivated by the smile on somebodies face when they get their mortgage application approved.

If we don't demand Patriotism and Sacrifice we will never get Patriotism and Sacrifice.
Frankly we have had a decade with the socially liberal and pro free market Progressive Democrats in government. This party Ireland's equivalent of the American Libertarians have left an appalling legacy.

Socially liberal? What socially liberal policies have been enacted in the last decade? The PDs were more like the Republican party than the Libertarian Party.

swordofislam

Suryavarman wrote: »

And how did that work out for him again?

Great they nuked Hiroshima and the economy was booming when he died. Or are you trying to say that if he was a libertarian he would never have died?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Socially liberal? What socially liberal policies have been enacted in the last decade? The PDs were more like the Republican party than the Libertarian Party.

Civil partnership legislation

Suryavarman

swordofislam wrote: »

Great they nuked Hiroshima and the economy was booming when he died. Or are you trying to say that if he was a libertarian he would never have died?

Nuking Hiroshima is a good thing?

The economy was booming? Having food rations isn't generally the sign of a booming economy. When Roosevelt died the only thing that was being produced in America was tanks, warships and war planes none of those are exactly a sign of prosperity. The most optimistic accounts of the Great Depression believe it took ten years for GDP to return to 1929 levels even though most other countries had long achieved those GDP levels. In 1940 the unemployment rate still stood at 15%.

I can't see were you see me implying that he wouldn't have died if he was a libertarian. That's more ridiculous than calling the PDs libertarian.

Civil partnership legislation

They more than made up for that by trying to introduce ASBOs and forcing telecommunication companies to store information on their customers so that it could be handed to the Gardai on request.

jmayo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Right tell us how Roosevelt was such a poor president in comparison to say one of the the Republicans (not counting Lincoln please).
Funny isn't it how republicans, rather like our own ff, often leave office as the ecoonomy has tanked and it is up to a democrat to pick up the pieces. :rolleyes:

Suryavarman wrote: »

And how did that work out for him again?

Well he did manage to help get the country out of depression, help win a war, proved that a disabled person could run a country and get elected three times.
Oh and supposedly most scholars vote him in the top three presidents along with Lincoln and Washington.

Would you consider one of the republicans (not counting Lincoln please) to be more successful ?

Godge

swordofislam wrote: »

Roosevelt paid his advisers a dollar a year. A million a year doesn't get you the best people in banking if those people are motivated solely by money.
If we don't demand Patriotism and Sacrifice we will never get Patriotism and Sacrifice.
Frankly we have had a decade with the socially liberal and pro free market Progressive Democrats in government. This party Ireland's equivalent of the American Libertarians have left an appalling legacy.

We don't need patriotism and sacrifice. Of much more importance are competence, ability and integrity. If we have to pay for those, so be it.

We certainly won't get those three from the opposition. ULA lack the competence and ability. FF and SF lack all three.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Suryavarman

jmayo wrote: »

Well he did manage to help get the country out of depression, help win a war, proved that a disabled person could run a country and get elected three times.
Oh and supposedly most scholars vote him in the top three presidents along with Lincoln and Washington.

He didn't get America out of the depression, he unnecessarily prolonged the depression. By running and getting elected for a third time he also broke the unwritten rule of presidents only doing two terms.

Would you consider one of the republicans (not counting Lincoln please) to be more successful ?

Why would I count Lincoln? He was probably one of the worst presidents the US ever had. I think it's fair to say that apart from Lincoln all Republican presidents (and all the other presidents for that matter) were better than Roosevelt.

Liam Byrne

Suryavarman wrote: »

Well the best bankers surely aren't motivated by the smile on somebodies face when they get their mortgage application approved.

Where are these "best bankers" that you're on about ? The ones that created this mess ? :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Godge wrote: »

Sell the house, rent closer to the job, that is what a German or Dutch person would do.

Oh my good god! :rolleyes:

I work from home most days. The fact, however, is that on the days that I need to travel, THERE IS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT.

So therefore the CAR IS A NECESSITY - which is the point that I was making.

I have no obsession with property, and pointed out the error of the "property ladder" bullcrap to everyone who would listen....

...a house is a home, not an investment.

Suryavarman

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where are these "best bankers" that you're on about ? The ones that created this mess ? :rolleyes:

If I knew where these bankers were I'd be setting up an investment firm, hiring them and making myself a very wealthy man.

Liam Byrne

Suryavarman wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Where are these "best bankers" that you're on about ? The ones that created this mess ? :rolleyes:

If I knew where these bankers were I'd be setting up an investment firm, hiring them and making myself a very wealthy man.

I think ethical, decent bankers and speculators are now like Santa Claus - non-existent.

I recently had to call a supposed reputable firm to ask for my money and was told point-blank that I could not withdraw it......I lost a few hundred quid in completely unwarranted "instalments" by the time I found out that I could - by simply closing the account.

Ethics and honesty are in seriously short supply in far too many areas of business.

Godge

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh my good god! :rolleyes:

I work from home most days. The fact, however, is that on the days that I need to travel, THERE IS NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT.

So therefore the CAR IS A NECESSITY - which is the point that I was making.

I have no obsession with property, and pointed out the error of the "property ladder" bullcrap to everyone who would listen....

...a house is a home, not an investment.

You have no obsession with property yet you own a house which you insist on keeping as it is a home, not an investment???? The logical thing for you to do still is sell your home, rent beside a train or bus station and use public transport. It solves your problem.

If that doesn't work, as you work mostly from home, by moving closer to rent where you generally need to go, you can use a taxi on the few occasions you need to travel outside the house and public transport is not available. Much cheaper to use a taxi a couple of times a week than run a car.

The only thing holding you back is an irrational desire to hold on to property such as a house and a car.

Valmont

swordofislam wrote: »

Of course it was.
Mary Harney and the rest of the light touch brigade did what any libertarian would do and voted to protect their own personal interests. Also they lost their nerve when they saw that libertarianism/ neoliberalism whatever you want to call it doesn't work in the real world.

You are engaging in a Nirvana fallacy that because one decision was non libertarian the PD/ FF government was non libertarian.

In the real world politicians make compromises and libertarian politicians will make the compromises that protect their owners.

Please please at least read the first line of the wikipedia article on libertarianism. You are so clueless it's hard for me to even acknowledge it.

Dannyboy83

swordofislam wrote: »

Frankly we have had a decade with the socially liberal and pro free market Progressive Democrats in government. This party Ireland's equivalent of the American Libertarians have left an appalling legacy.

You can't say FF were left. You can say they were right.
Both sides do it all the time.

In some aspects, they were heavily right.
In some aspects, they were heavily left.

They didn't break the economy by following solely right policies.
They didn't break the economy by following solely left policies.
They broke the economy by taking facets of left and right, and combining it into deformed bastard ideology that should have died at conception.

If you took Fianna Fails policies to any self respecting economics teacher and claimed it was workable, he would probably beat you to a pulp with his bare fists.
Better to take it on a tour of South American countries where you will be paid handsomely for it.

Liam Byrne

Godge wrote: »

You have no obsession with property yet you own a house which you insist on keeping as it is a home, not an investment???? The logical thing for you to do still is sell your home, rent beside a train or bus station and use public transport. It solves your problem.

Have a look at what passes for a house near the train & bus station and get back to me. :rolleyes: A whole selection of pokey, run-down flats with half of them boarded up. Remember what I said about a house being a home and not some kip or fragile cardboard box in which you can hear not just your neighbours but the drunken idiots down the hall ? Well the fact is that a home is a priority for me. My point was that a house isn't an investment to sell, it's somewhere to make a home. I resisted the "property ladder" crap and resisted the over-lending offer from the bank.

If that doesn't work, as you work mostly from home, by moving closer to rent where you generally need to go, you can use a taxi on the few occasions you need to travel outside the house and public transport is not available. Much cheaper to use a taxi a couple of times a week than run a car.

Yeah - if yoi ignore the fact that four 25-30 mile taxi trips every week cost more than the amount that I get for actually doing what I do when I get there. Please don't talk rubbish.

The only thing holding you back is an irrational desire to hold on to property such as a house and a car.

No. The only thing is that I have made rational choices based on my priorities that you choose to dismiss.

But let's assume that I - and everyone else in the same boat - did the above. How much do you reckon rent for the kips near the train station would be ? And would they fit all - say - 15,000 of us, estimating 10% of the population in a similar boat ?

Ireland needed to build facilities and then build communities around them, but greed and government failed.

RandomName2

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Moore McDowell is meant to be an economist, right ?

One of these people who knows irrelevant things like facts and how economies work ?

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

Does something happen to people earning silly money that makes them ignore the facts and spout rubbish, ignoring the facts of life that their skewed opinions force onto others?

+1

What's more - what really irks me in this context is that most of this VAT increase will be going to the EU.

Electricity and Heating may have a lower rate but they probably shouldn't be VATed at all imo (they are seriously expensive essentials)

RandomName2

Godge wrote: »

Sell the house, rent closer to the job, that is what a German or Dutch person would do.

Not from choice it isn't.

People on the continent are just as keen to be homeowners as Irish are.

There may be statistically less of them, but the factoid is that they are all happy that way

ednwireland

RandomName2 wrote: »

Electricity and Heating may have a lower rate but they probably shouldn't be VATed at all imo (they are seriously expensive essentials)

no but wait for the carbon tax hit

Sand

If you want to see incoherent, unrealistic economic thinking switch on VB now - Joe Higgins literally dying on live TV trying to hold together the hopes and dreams that is the ULA economic "plan".

Chuck Stone

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

VAT tax 'contribution' paid is more optional for people who have excess wealth than those who don't.

The problem with VAT is that, as you have said above, it is not just levied on optional goods. Unless you live in a cave and wash your clothes in a river.

Also, it is a flat tax so it hits people on middle and lower incomes proportionately more.

Someone on 400K PA pays the exact same tax on a particular brand of washing machine as someone on 40K PA even though they both need a washing machine.

Liam Byrne

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then how come he claimed on tonight's Frontline that VAT was largely related to "optional" spending ?

Are clothes optional now?
Electricity & Heating?
Petrol to get to work?
Insurance?

VAT tax 'contribution' paid is more optional for people who have excess wealth than those who don't.

The problem with VAT is that, as you have said above, it is not just levied on optional goods. Unless you live in a cave and wash your clothes in a river.

Also, it is a flat tax so it hits people on middle and lower incomes proportionately more.

Someone on 400K PA pays the exact same tax on a particular brand of washing machine as someone on 40K PA even though they both need a washing machine.

That was more-or-less my point. Well-to-do people who don't live in the real world with the majority where these things hit hard, and yet have the ear of the government and media when they want to spout their rubbish.

I don't think I've ever heard an economist or politician point out that our "low tax" economy involves someone on minimum wage paying 1% of their GROSS wages for a TV licence.

But a TV is optional - clothes and electricity and heating aren't, despite whatever ****e McDowell spouts - he probably doesn't even know what the bill for his suits comes to.

jmayo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So no New Deal and let people starve or stand inline at food kitchens ?
He should have just sat back and let the markets help the people, right ?

How was taking the US into WWII calamitous ?
Didn't the US come out of it as the leading world power ?

BTW should he just have ignored the Japanese attack on Pearl ?
Of course we are now going to probably go down the route of how he planned to let Pearl happen and blah blah blah.
Conspiracy forum is over there somewhere.

In case you didn't know, the US through lend-lease program had actually helped save the Allies long before they ever declared war on anyone.
The convoys of equipment they sent to stalin actually helped stop the Germans.
And then there were the supplies to the Uk.

Suryavarman wrote: »

He didn't get America out of the depression, he unnecessarily prolonged the depression. By running and getting elected for a third time he also broke the unwritten rule of presidents only doing two terms.

So pray tell us with all your wisdom what should he have done to shorten the depression ?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why would I count Lincoln? He was probably one of the worst presidents the US ever had.

Bloody hell.
Funny how most US scholars disagree. :rolleyes:

Suryavarman wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that apart from Lincoln all Republican presidents (and all the other presidents for that matter) were better than Roosevelt.

Yeah bush was fooking great and ronnie was a wet dream for the neo liberals.
Except the seeds that old ronnie sowed ultimately resulted in the banking meltdown.
Oh and his tax regime increased the gulf between rich and middle class never mind the poor.
Added to that he tripled the debt.
And guess who appointed mr greenspan ?

Godge wrote: »

You have no obsession with property yet you own a house which you insist on keeping as it is a home, not an investment???? The logical thing for you to do still is sell your home, rent beside a train or bus station and use public transport. It solves your problem.

Oh ffs.
For a start have you ever been near Limerick train station ?
Secondly people may like to live in certain places rather than stuck in somewhere that happens to be lucky enough to be on a bus route.

Godge wrote: »

If that doesn't work, as you work mostly from home, by moving closer to rent where you generally need to go, you can use a taxi on the few occasions you need to travel outside the house and public transport is not available. Much cheaper to use a taxi a couple of times a week than run a car.

The only thing holding you back is an irrational desire to hold on to property such as a house and a car.

How the fook do you know why the guy wants to live where he is living ?
Maybe he doesn't want to now sell in a depressed market ?
Ever thought it might be because he or his other half (if he has one) have relatives living in the area and for things like childcare down the road this might be very beneficial ?
Maybe he has children that are going to local school ?

The amount of people around here who lecture others, particularly about where the should live, is fooking unbelievable.

Having an obsession with property to me, is that you try and own as much of it as you can or you go to any length to buy it, including paying ridiculous amounts for it with huge borrowings.
Buying a home for yourself at an affordable price, not overly extending one self to do this, is not a bloody property obsession.
And before you compare us to some EU country, take a look at how their rental systems work.
They don't have fly by night get rich quick landlords who are the wants really obsessed with property.

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you have left 'the surplus population' to starve?
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/19-05-2008/105255-famine-0/

The USA acquired a global hegemony for 250,000 dead. That's success in anyone's book.

swordofislam

jmayo wrote: »

The amount of people around here who lecture others, particularly about where the should live, is fooking unbelievable.

I find it amusing to be lectured about the rights of the rich and the importance of entrepreneurship by people who are poor and have never paid a late filing charge at the CRO.

swordofislam

Valmont wrote: »

Please please at least read the first line of the wikipedia article on libertarianism. You are so clueless it's hard for me to even acknowledge it.

Please don't subscribe to the Nirvana fallacy. By the standards of any political organisation in Irish history the PDs were libertarian.

I don't need a Wikipedia article; I can see the results of PD policies all around me.

The claim that the PDs were not socially liberal has already been rebutted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

swordofislam wrote: »

jmayo wrote: »

The amount of people around here who lecture others, particularly about where the should live, is fooking unbelievable.

I find it amusing to be lectured about the rights of the rich and the importance of entrepreneurship by people who are poor and have never paid a late filing charge at the CRO.

Huh ?

Are you saying that they didn't pay their company's fines because they're poor, or what ?

Or maybe you're commending them for never being late despite being poor ?

Either way, the issue isn't "rich people's rights"; it's "rich people's rights taking precedence over others, and us having to foot the bill".

Valmont

swordofislam wrote: »

By the standards of any political organisation in Irish history the PDs were libertarian.

By the standards of the USSR the politicians in Finland are libertarians-- only we both know they aren't. Your logic is atrocious. The PDs are not libertarians; they were centre-right. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Why can't you understand this distinction? I think you do need to read something about libertarianism because conflating policies that added 65,000 workers to the state with libertarianism is wildly inaccurate to the point of being quite funny.

You'll be telling us that Castro is a social democrat next. Or that Bertie was a Mormon.

jmayo

swordofislam wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't understand what you are on about.
I don't understand how you can assume I am poor or indeed rich.
BTW I am neither.
I am one of those in the middle who happens to pay for the fookups and tax loopholes of a chunk of the rich and the laziness of some of the poor. :mad:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks for links.
BTW what do you think he should have done.
Sat and let the market sort it out ?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I didn't say that they were justified by having a power grab and ending up as the primary super power.
I said it was an result of them entering the war.
The justification was really to stop some countries who were led by some not very nice people invading other countries and slaughtering innocent people they considered lesser human beings.
Oh and if you check the Japanese they had a superiority complex every bit as much as the Germans.
They just never turned into an industrial operation.

Ehh please tell me why the US should have stayed out of the war and secondly do you think that we in this part of the world would have benefitted from their non participation ?

Now I hope people don't start some sh** about how bad the Allies were and that they were no better than the Axis forces.
The answer to that is the DEATH CAMPS and Nanking.

I seriously cannot believe someone of your intelligence thinks it would be better off for everyone if the US had not entered the war. :eek:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

swordofislam

jmayo wrote: »

I don't understand what you are on about.
I don't understand how you can assume I am poor or indeed rich.
BTW I am neither.
I am one of those in the middle who happens to pay for the fookups and tax loopholes of a chunk of the rich and the laziness of some of the poor.

I wasn't taking about you.

swordofislam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Roosevelt was elected in 1933. His monetary policy was very different from Hoover's.
http://www.marshall.edu/etd/masters/napier-steven-2005-ma.pdf

Permabear wrote: »

The impact of this on the economy was absolutely wrenching, as we have seen. But the government should have addressed the root cause, which was monetary policy, rather than going the Keynesian route with the New Deal.

Roosevelt did in fact address monetary policy.
The options are not binary. One can loosen monetary policy and implement Keyensian policies.

What is this fallacy called where one puts forward a statement of fact and then makes an unrelated claim to use the credibility generated from the first statement?

swordofislam

Valmont wrote: »

The PDs are not libertarians; they were centre-right.

Absolute rubbish. The PDs led the charge on Divorce, Legalising Homosexuality and yes gay marriage such as it is.
I don't need to worry about what libertarians say I have seen what they do.

You are engaging in a Nirvana fallacy.

Light touch regulation followed by a socialisation of debt is libertarianism in action.