Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Syllabus

now saying 55% ONLY have paid

tayto lover

Syllabus wrote: »

now saying 55% ONLY have paid

AND that's greatly exaggerated too.

Syllabus

tayto lover wrote: »

AND that's greatly exaggerated too.

well if the poll at the top of this page is anything to go by it is

Jay D

No. Can't believe I voted for this príck. Can see the charges starting to gain momentum now, well they can go sing for it. I'll go to jail before I pay it. Local amenities my eye, what amenities I ask!?

Loving the patronising Hitler propaganda coming from places now saying you owe this and that, no I don't. Go rob someone else please.

Frank Black

Syllabus wrote: »

well if the poll at the top of this page is anything to go by it is

Don't worry, AH polls are non-reflective of greater society.

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

Don't worry, AH polls are non-reflective of greater society.

Nor are R.T.E. reports it seems.

Frank Black

tayto lover wrote: »

Nor are R.T.E. reports it seems.

Don't worry Tayto, I'm sure the non-payers are still in the overwhelming majority.

tayto lover

black francis wrote: »

Don't worry Tayto, I'm sure the non-payers are still in the overwhelming majority.

For once we agree then.

gerryo777

black francis wrote: »

Don't worry Tayto, I'm sure the non-payers are still in the overwhelming majority.

Don't worry frannie, I'm sure the amount of our money used to subsidise you and your mates will be getting smaller and smaller very soon.......

lividduck

Looks like the Blueshirt/Sticky coalition have reason to start worrying
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0419/poll-shows-drop-in-satisfaction-with-government.html

gerryo777

lividduck wrote: »

Looks like the Blueshirt/Sticky coalition have reason to start worrying
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0419/poll-shows-drop-in-satisfaction-with-government.html

Wait until the troika start on frannie and her mates, we'll see if their still as happy with enda & co when they find that they're being stripped of their 'entitlements'.
Tick tock!

Ghandee

lividduck wrote: »

Looks like the Blueshirt/Sticky coalition have reason to start worrying
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0419/poll-shows-drop-in-satisfaction-with-government.html

lol, and a big fat resounding NO vote in the fiscal referendum will really emphasise just how disillusionment there really is with the current bunch of gombeens running the show.

a no vote is a vote of no confidence imo .

Edna better please his overlords in Germania or he could soon be ousted on to the naughty step, that the bold boys have to go to.

Just ask the former leaders of Greece and Italy who failed to tow the line.;)

Frank Black

gerryo777 wrote: »

Don't worry frannie, I'm sure the amount of our money used to subsidise you and your mates will be getting smaller and smaller very soon.......

I actually work in the private sector Gerry. Your money does not make up my pay check.

In the industry I'm in about 50% of our clients are public sector, so I do have experience of working with people in local authorities and such like.

The vast majority of people I've worked with have been diligent, hard working and conscientious. There is a small minority of lazy bastards that give the rest a bad name.

It may suit your arguments to try to paint all ps workers as cosseted, work shy layabouts, but IMO it's pretty far from the truth.

jumpguy

Ghandee wrote: »

lol, and a big fat resounding NO vote in the fiscal referendum will really emphasise just how disillusionment there really is with the current bunch of gombeens running the show.

a no vote is a vote of no confidence imo .

Do you not think to save your no votes in confidence for the opinion polls and general elections, and instead find out what the treaty is about and vote as to how you feel it will benefit or be of detriment to this country in the long-term, far beyond the lifetime of this government?

Ghandee

black francis wrote: »

I actually work in the private sector Gerry. Your money does not make up my pay check.

In the industry I'm in about 50% of our clients are public sector, so I do have experience of working with people in local authorities and such like.

The vast majority of people I've worked with have been diligent, hard working and conscientious. There is a small minority of lazy bastards that give the rest a bad name.

It may suit your arguments to try to paint all ps workers as cosseted, work shy layabouts, but IMO it's pretty far from the truth.

I think he may be trying to imply some PS workers are vastly over paid, and get undeserved 'entitlements' more than making them out to be workshy.

Example, certain members of the PS are in 60-100k a year jobs, but get travel allowances etc.

So, big fat salaries to be spent on what exactly? The rest of us in the real world have to actually pay, from our own pockets, to put the diesel (which its taxed to the hilt with vat added on) to get to work, to earn money to be taxed on it.

A few more paupers are about to emerge Francis.

Bet your house on it sir.

Ghandee

jumpguy wrote: »

Do you not think to save your no votes in confidence for the opinion polls and general elections, and instead find out what the treaty is about and vote as to how you feel it will benefit or be of detriment to this country in the long-term, far beyond the lifetime of this government?

Are you trying to suggest that I know nothing about the treaty I am being asked to vote in, is that it?

jumpguy

Ghandee wrote: »

Are you trying to suggest that I know nothing about the treaty I am being asked to vote in, is that it?

Well, your reasons for voting no don't seem to reference the treaty at all at all.

gerryo777

jumpguy wrote: »

Well, your reasons for voting no don't seem to reference the treaty at all at all.

I'm not sure which way I'll vote, yet.

I do wonder though, if there is a no vote will they keep coming back to us until they get a yes vote?

jumpguy

gerryo777 wrote: »

I'm not sure which way I'll vote, yet.

I do wonder though, if there is a no vote will they keep coming back to us until they get a yes vote?

I suppose it would depend if there was a public appetite to vote again. There would be no point bringing a referendum back again for the sake of bringing it back and crossing your fingers.

Would you prefer if we'd stayed at 'no' for Lisbon, even though the majority of the electorate changed their mind (as was seen in the result...)?

Ghandee

jumpguy wrote: »

Well, your reasons for voting no don't seem to reference the treaty at all at all.

What reasons did I give in my post as to why I'd be voting no exactly

A may have said a no vote would represent a vote of no confidence (meant by the general public) but I gave no personal reason as to which way my vote would be cast.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

gerryo777

jumpguy wrote: »

I suppose it would depend if there was a public appetite to vote again. There would be no point bringing a referendum back again for the sake of bringing it back and crossing your fingers.

Would you prefer if we'd stayed at 'no' for Lisbon, even though the majority of the electorate changed their mind (as was seen in the result...)?

Was lisbon not 'yes for jobs' & 'yes for having our say in europe'?

All I can see is massive unemployment and europe beating us to a pulp in order to save the european banks.....

tayto lover

jumpguy wrote: »

I suppose it would depend if there was a public appetite to vote again. There would be no point bringing a referendum back again for the sake of bringing it back and crossing your fingers.

Would you prefer if we'd stayed at 'no' for Lisbon, even though the majority of the electorate changed their mind (as was seen in the result...)?

"Vote Lisbon for jobs"
The people were coerced into the Yes vote 2nd time round.

Can we really believe what they tell us about anything ?
All we seem to hear from politicians is lies.

gerryo777

tayto lover wrote: »

"Vote Lisbon for jobs"
The people were coerced into the Yes vote 2nd time round.

Can we really believe what they tell us about anything ?
All we seem to hear from politicians is lies.

How do you know when a politician is lying???



His mouth is moving.:D

jumpguy

Ghandee wrote: »

What reasons did I give in my post as to why I'd be voting no exactly

A may have said a no vote would represent a vote of no confidence (meant by the general public) but I gave no personal reason as to which way my vote would be cast.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, no, you didn't explicitly state "here are my reasons for voting no:", but you seemed to delight in the fact that voting no would be an embarrassment to the government and also the sentence "a no vote is a vote of no confidence." Should a no vote not be about so much more than "no confidence"?

tayto lover

jumpguy wrote: »

Well, no, you didn't explicitly state "here are my reasons for voting no:", but you seemed to delight in the fact that voting no would be an embarrassment to the government and also the sentence "a no vote is a vote of no confidence." Should a no vote not be about so much more than "no confidence"?

It would be nice to see some of their faces after it though:)

Ghandee

I'd be surprised if our current govt have not, at this stage, and behind closed doors, already discussed how we default, or when we default.


If we default after a second handout/bail out however, it will really make us look untrustworthy and sneaky to any potential lenders in the future. For those reasons, I hope the default happens sooner rather than the inevitable later.

gerryo777

Ghandee wrote: »

I'd be surprised if our current govt have not, at this stage, and behind closed doors, already discussed how we default, or when we default.


If we default after a second handout/bail out however, it will really make us look untrustworthy and sneaky to any potential lenders in the future. For those reasons, I hope the default happens sooner rather than the inevitable later.

Careful now Ghandee, we don't want to be slagged of for being 'economic illiterates' again by the pro taxers.......

jumpguy

tayto lover wrote: »

It would be nice to see some of their faces after it though:)

Sure, but not so nice to see the faces of ourselves and our children in the future as yet another Irish government has adopted mad fiscal policies that means we fall into recession at the first significant bump, and end up with another inefficient public sector but serving another generation.

In the short-term it'll make Ireland a riskier investment for anyone lending to us and hence will mean it'll cost us more to borrow from the markets when we return to them (which is 2013 as is being repeated constantly.) That'll probably limit how much we can borrow without working up a ridiculous interest, which would mean more austerity to offset the money we can't get by borrowing.

Ghandee

jumpguy wrote: »

Well, no, you didn't explicitly state "here are my reasons for voting no:", but you seemed to delight in the fact that voting no would be an embarrassment to the government and also the sentence "a no vote is a vote of no confidence." Should a no vote not be about so much more than "no confidence"?

I would be delighted to see this current regime embarrassed.

I won't shy away from that fact, they have proven themselves to be no better than the last shower they replaced, lies, broken promises, stealth taxes, and that Hogan fella, parading around town threatening to change laws so he can break laws whilst at the same time, avoiding the same laws which were applicable to him in the country he has a hliday home in, yet all the time reminding us that the law of the land must be obeyed here.

So yes, I'll take great delight in a no vote, it will Piss off the smug gits who think they are out masters, not our servants, and it will let our EU OVERLORDS know that Ireland will be pushed around no longer. Perhaps then, they'll offer some debt forgiveness, and stop asking us the Irish tax payers to pay for the mistakes their banks made. (the
ECB admitted it this day last week)

tayto lover

jumpguy wrote: »

Sure, but not so nice to see the faces of ourselves and our children in the future as yet another Irish government has adopted mad fiscal policies that means we fall into recession at the first significant bump, and end up with another inefficient public sector but serving another generation.

In the short-term it'll make Ireland a riskier investment for anyone lending to us and hence will mean it'll cost us more to borrow from the markets when we return to them (which is 2013 as is being repeated constantly.) That'll probably limit how much we can borrow without working up a ridiculous interest, which would mean more austerity to offset the money we can't get by borrowing.

Enda will use that sort of response to scaremonger too.