IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Although i didn't

This is the way the discussion went

scoff: what are your sources?
Me: boyles book, simon coveney and others
scoff: boyle? Ah shur he cant be trusted
me: sure he can
scoff: no he cant....

Scoff: here i couldnt read his book but here is som random interview with him talking about something else, now i will use very unreliable source to back up my arguments cause it suits

"amused"
Heads the ball

Well, again not quite - the interview is about the book. You were wrong about Coveney, who was talking about the bailout, not the guarantee, and it seems from the interview - about the book, in case you missed that - that what Boyle is talking about in the book is also the bailout, not the guarantee.

Of course, you can chapter and verse me - that is, quote what Boyle says from the book (I, ah, presume you have a copy?) and give me a page reference - that way anyone can check you're correct. And I will, of course, first check, and then eat my words and apologise, or not, depending.

Otherwise, you see, all that's happening is that you're claiming Boyle said something in his book which nobody else seems to have read there, and unable to tell us where it is. And hopefully you can see the problem with that sort of claim?

As for Coveney, you've entirely failed to provide any backup to your claim about him either. Again, feel free to do so, and feel free to drop the claim if you can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Although i didn't

This is the way the discussion went

scoff: what are your sources?
Me: boyles book, simon coveney and others
scoff: boyle? Ah shur he cant be trusted
me: sure he can
scoff: no he cant....

Scoff: here i couldnt read his book but here is som random interview with him talking about something else, now i will use very unreliable source to back up my arguments cause it suits

"amused"
Heads the ball

Well, again not quite - the interview is about the book. You were wrong about Coveney, who was talking about the bailout, not the guarantee, and it seems from the interview - about the book, in case you missed that - that what Boyle is talking about in the book is also the bailout, not the guarantee.

Of course, you can chapter and verse me - that is, quote what Boyle says from the book (I, ah, presume you have a copy?) and give me a page reference - that way anyone can check you're correct. And I will, of course, first check, and then eat my words and apologise, or not, depending.

Otherwise, you see, all that's happening is that you're claiming Boyle said something in his book which nobody else seems to have read there, and unable to tell us where it is. And hopefully you can see the problem with that sort of claim?

As for Coveney, you've entirely failed to provide any backup to your claim about him either. Again, feel free to do so, and feel free to drop the claim if you can't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And after i do all that it will be dismissed as unreliable or pub talk so its pretty futile

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

And after i do all that it will be dismissed as unreliable or pub talk so its pretty futile

No, that's a cop-out, and one that suggests very strongly that you can't back up your claim. I have also made claims about Dan Boyle, but I've backed them up - that is, I have provided a link to the material I'm quoting, so that anyone can read it for themselves.

I'll say it again. If you have the book, quote from it and give me a page number. If you can't do that, it tells me you don't have the book. If you don't have the book, then you're going on an impression of what's in it, or reports of what's in it, or a personal memory of what's in it - none of which seems to have any further verification bar your personal say-so.

It seems reasonable to counter that with a transcript of Vincent Browne interviewing Boyle about his book just after the launch of his book, an interview in which Browne makes no mention of such a claim - which, were it in the book, would be an extraordinary omission, particularly for Vincent Browne.

I can't see what's so complicated or repugnant about the idea that if you make a claim, you back it up. It's very much part of the forum ethos that a poster should be able to do so if challenged, or retract statements they cannot back up. It seems to me, then, that you should retract your claims and admit you cannot back them up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's a cop-out, and one that suggests very strongly that you can't back up your claim. I have also made claims about Dan Boyle, but I've backed them up - that is, I have provided a link to the material I'm quoting, so that anyone can read it for themselves.

I'll say it again. If you have the book, quote from it and give me a page number. If you can't do that, it tells me you don't have the book. If you don't have the book, then you're going on an impression of what's in it, or reports of what's in it, or a personal memory of what's in it - none of which seems to have any further verification bar your personal say-so.

It seems reasonable to counter that with a transcript of Vincent Browne interviewing Boyle about his book just after the launch of his book, an interview in which Browne makes no mention of such a claim - which, were it in the book, would be an extraordinary omission, particularly for Vincent Browne.

I can't see what's so complicated or repugnant about the idea that if you make a claim, you back it up. It's very much part of the forum ethos that a poster should be able to do so if challenged, or retract statements they cannot back up. It seems to me, then, that you should retract your claims and admit you cannot back them up.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats a lot of speculation on your part.

The point that you are misisng is, you have already said that you dont accept him (or Simon Coveney) as a credible source of evidence so on that basis I wont be giving you the page number. Although you can buy the book and read it if you like.

The point is we have been screwed by the ECB.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Thats a lot of speculation on your part.

The point that you are misisng is, you have already said that you dont accept him (or Simon Coveney) as a credible source of evidence so on that basis I wont be giving you the page number. Although you can buy the book and read it if you like.

The point is we have been screwed by the ECB.

I think what you seem to be missing is that Scofflaw never claimed Coveney wasn't a reliable source. Instead he claimed Coveney was not talking about what you thought he was talking about. Again you are misrepresenting what someone is saying to protect your opinion. It's a dangerous way to form opinions, i.e. form it loosely and refuse to have it challenged hence leaving yourself in deliberate ignorance of the truth.

I asked you earlier whether you thought the bank guarantees of 08/09 were driven by the ECB who refused to let us burn the bondholders. You said yes. I then proceeded to provide you with a link to show that the ECB refused to let us burn the bondholders in 2010 when they were bailing out Ireland and suggested that maybe that's what you were thinking about. You chose to ignore that.

Subsequently Scofflaw provided further evidence, i.e. links to sources backing up his opinion, that further pointed to a mix up on your part. Your only response to that is to utterly misrepresent what he said while providing absolutely no links or quotes or anything but your word to back up your opinion.

The thing is there's no shame in holding your hands up and saying that you got the guarantee and the bail out mixed up. You wouldn't be the first and won't be the last. None of us have a complete understanding of everything and the only way we can learn is to have our opinions challenged with reason and fact. As you can see Scofflaw entertained the possibility he might be wrong. You could do that yourself.

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

I think what you seem to be missing is that Scofflaw never claimed Coveney wasn't a reliable source. Instead he claimed Coveney was not talking about what you thought he was talking about. Again you are misrepresenting what someone is saying to protect your opinion. It's a dangerous way to form opinions, i.e. form it loosely and refuse to have it challenged hence leaving yourself in deliberate ignorance of the truth.

I asked you earlier whether you thought the bank guarantees of 08/09 were driven by the ECB who refused to let us burn the bondholders. You said yes. I then proceeded to provide you with a link to show that the ECB refused to let us burn the bondholders in 2010 when they were bailing out Ireland and suggested that maybe that's what you were thinking about. You chose to ignore that.

Subsequently Scofflaw provided further evidence, i.e. links to sources backing up his opinion, that further pointed to a mix up on your part. Your only response to that is to utterly misrepresent what he said while providing absolutely no links or quotes or anything but your word to back up your opinion.

The thing is there's no shame in holding your hands up and saying that you got the guarantee and the bail out mixed up. You wouldn't be the first and won't be the last. None of us have a complete understanding of everything and the only way we can learn is to have our opinions challenged with reason and fact. As you can see Scofflaw entertained the possibility he might be wrong. You could do that yourself.

Not quiet. I did not get them mixed up.

Although if you look at where this argument started (the general lack of democracy within Europe) EITHER scenario (guarantee v bailout) would back that up - thats the irony.

There is evidence out there but I really just dont see the point in jumping through hoops for you given that people dont find that source of evidence credible (someone went as far as to say "all politicians lie").

Go and buy the book if you want to.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Not quiet. I did not get them mixed up.

Although if you look at where this argument started (the general lack of democracy within Europe) EITHER scenario (guarantee v bailout) would back that up - thats the irony.

There is evidence out there but I really just dont see the point in jumping through hoops for you given that people dont find that source of evidence credible (someone went as far as to say "all politicians lie").

Go and buy the book if you want to.

No, that's really quite inadequate - you're arguing it here, and you've demonstrated absolutely no ability to back it up, and a lot of signs that you're confusing 2010 and 2008.

The forum does require that you make the effort. As per the forum charter:

Forum Charter wrote:

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

If you can't back it up on request in the forum, don't claim it. There's no point arguing with someone who invents their own "facts", and you're not at liberty to do so here. For you to be able to claim the source is the book, then you have to have read the book, and you can point to where it's claimed in the book, because, frankly, at this stage, I don't think it is. I think you're simply wrong.

regards,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

There is evidence out there but I really just dont see the point in jumping through hoops for you...

Well, you've already jumped through quite a number of hoops in an effort to avoid retracting your statements. A few more wouldn't hurt, surely?

Heads the ball wrote: »

...someone went as far as to say "all politicians lie".

Did they? Where?

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, that's really quite inadequate - you're arguing it here, and you've demonstrated absolutely no ability to back it up, and a lot of signs that you're confusing 2010 and 2008.

The forum does require that you make the effort. As per the forum charter:



If you can't back it up on request in the forum, don't claim it. There's no point arguing with someone who invents their own "facts", and you're not at liberty to do so here. For you to be able to claim the source is the book, then you have to have read the book, and you can point to where it's claimed in the book, because, frankly, at this stage, I don't think it is. I think you're simply wrong.

regards,
Scofflaw

I think you'll find I named my sources.

Also, you have not provided any evidence that it was a unilateral decision. Can you do that?

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

I think you'll find I named my sources.

You have simply named two people, and in one case been unable to provide even a pointer to evidence, while in the other case you've just said "read the book", as if a claim like that would only occur in the book and never be commented on. As I've pointed out, you can't give a page, which means at best you don't have the book in front of you and are relying on memory - and at worst (and increasingly likely) you've never read it.

What's to prevent me saying "no, you're completely wrong, no such claim is in there" and inviting anyone who doesn't believe me to similarly "read the book"?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Also, you have not provided any evidence that it was a unilateral decision. Can you do that?

It's impossible to prove a negative, which is what makes such questions the favourite of conspiracy theorists. I can point out that there's no evidence of ECB involvement in any of the documentation handed over to the PAC, and the only documentation that wasn't handed over were opinions from the AG.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

You have simply named the people, and said "read the book", as if a claim like that would only occur in the book and never be commented on. As I've pointed out, you can't give a page, which means at best you don't have the book in front of you and are relying on memory - and at worst (and increasingly likely) you've never read it.



It's impossible to prove a negative, which is what makes such questions the favourite of conspiracy theorists. I can point out that there's no evidence of ECB involvement in any of the documentation handed over to the PAC, and the only documentation that wasn't handed over were opinions from the AG.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I dont think you are interested in the page number for one second as you have said you dont find him credible so like I said, Im not for jumping through hoops for you.

Its not a "negative" I am asking you to prove. I am asking you to prove who made the decision

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

I dont think you are interested in the page number for one second as you have said you dont find him credible so like I said, Im not for jumping through hoops for you.

So in other words you want to come in here, spout opinions as truth, mention vague sources with no real detail and no actual data to back up what you say, misrepresent those who disagree with you, and then be taken seriously.

I'm afraid you're in the wrong forum for that.

Not to back seat mod or anything, but when was the last time anyone mentioned Social Welfare?

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

I dont think you are interested in the page number for one second as you have said you dont find him credible so like I said, Im not for jumping through hoops for you.

I don't find him credible, that's true - again, in the piece I linked to, you can see that he's completely wrong about the amount of support the ECB was giving the banks in 2008, quoting the levels from 2010 despite Browne's correction of him.

Problem is, I'm not even at the point of worrying about whether his claim is credible or not yet - I don't yet find your claim that he said it credible, and that's what I'm challenging right now. To knock down my challenge is very simple - give me a page reference, and I will look in the book. If you're right, I will say so - anyone can cross-check it and see whether I'm then lying.

Simple, see? What I'm asking is that you prove your claim, not Dan Boyle's.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Its not a "negative" I am asking you to prove. I am asking you to prove who made the decision

That's simple enough - the government. only they have the power to do so. As to which members of the government, we have the statements by various members of the Cabinet that Cowen and Lenihan made the decision and phoned around in the wee hours to get the agreement of the other Cabinet members.

That's going to turn out to not be what you're really asking, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

molloyjh wrote: »

So in other words you want to come in here, spout opinions as truth, mention vague sources with no real detail and no actual data to back up what you say, misrepresent those who disagree with you, and then be taken seriously.

I'm afraid you're in the wrong forum for that.

Not to back seat mod or anything, but when was the last time anyone mentioned Social Welfare?

In a sense, you could say that we're dealing with a question of the legitimacy of the troika to make such comments...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Chips Lovell

Heads the ball wrote: »

I dont think you are interested in the page number for one second...

Even if he isn't interested in a page number himself, what about the rest of us reading the thread? Could you not just give us a page reference and let us decide for ourselves who's in the right here?

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't find him credible, that's true - again, in the piece I linked to, you can see that he's completely wrong about the amount of support the ECB was giving the banks in 2008, quoting the levels from 2010 despite Browne's correction of him.

Problem is, I'm not even at the point of worrying about whether his claim is credible or not yet - I don't yet find your claim that he said it credible, and that's what I'm challenging right now. To knock down my challenge is very simple - give me a page reference, and I will look in the book. If you're right, I will say so - anyone can cross-check it and see whether I'm then lying.

Simple, see? What I'm asking is that you prove your claim, not Dan Boyle's.

Thank you for accepting that you dont find Dan Boyle credilble.

Do you find Vincent Browne credible on this issue?

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's simple enough - the government. only they have the power to do so. As to which members of the government, we have the statements by various members of the Cabinet that Cowen and Lenihan made the decision and phoned around in the wee hours to get the agreement of the other Cabinet members.

That's going to turn out to not be what you're really asking, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No that is a help. Sort of. Although what you have really done is just reiterate that the Government should have made the decision. But to ease my mind can you show me that the cabinet took this decision as one cabinet as provided for in the Constitution and can you provide me with the transparency around the transaction - like who attened the meeting and who said what? I think the answer is "no, that information is not available."

And Im sure you will accept what I am asking for is not an unreasonable level of documentation/transparency.

But I think where we differ is the degree of concern that we each have over its absence. I think that you think its case of sloppiness and nothing more - not trying to put words in your mouth. But I think it may be evidence of something that smells and its unforgivable that such a huge decision is not adequately documented in the interests of democracy and transparency.

Head The Wall

So you still want others to provide credible evidence but refuse to do so yourself.

View

This thread is going around in circles (at best).

Look, the "guarantee" did not depend ultimately on ECB advice (whether real or imaginary) nor did it depend on a government decision.

Instead, it depended on votes freely taken in the Oireachtas in which the two individuals cited (almost certainly) voted in favour of the proposal. It was up to them (and the other TDs and Senators) to cast their votes after due care and consideration. Apart from the Labour party though, they were all queuing up to praise the measure never mind vote for it.

Secondly, the "guarantee" was not universally popular - "the EU" had problems with it as: a) the initial proposal breeched EU law and had to be modified before going to the Oireachtas and b) the Finance Ministers from the other member states were apoplectic with the idea as they felt he wold be forced to follow suit (as indeed they were).

Yet amazingly our government - when faced with their complaints never mind that of Labour in the Oireachtas - neglected to stand up and say "What are you complaining about? We are acting on ECB advice - do you seriously expect us to ignore advice from them?"

In other words, they had the "perfect political defence", yet apparently our politicians - masters of spin - just "forgot" to use it and opted to take endless bricks being thrown at them for no obvious reason.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Although what you have really done is just reiterate that the Government should have made the decision.

You've obviously, looking at that statement, firmly made up your mind that you are completely right. However in the Dáil debate for the guarantees there was no mention of European involvement at all. There is support shown by Coveney though. Richard Brutons piece is quite a good summary of how we got to that point and why they felt that the guarantee was needed.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2008/09/30/00018.asp

Brian Lenihan wrote:

I emphasise to the House that the Government’s decision to give this guarantee was made following lengthy discussions and very careful consideration of all relevant factors. The Government’s decision was informed by the advice and guidance of the Governor of the Central Bank and chief executive officer of the Financial Regulator.

Richard Bruton wrote:

Everyone in this House will agree that huge mistakes have been made in Ireland in recent years that have undermined the successful model that we had. It was a model of an economy based on strong export growth, tight management of public finances and a financial sector that had a proper balance in its approach to funding. The problem was the dangerous flirtation with the property sector that occurred in recent years. Those who were in a position to exercise restraint on this, in my view, failed to act.

There is no doubt that the Financial Regulator repeatedly warned of some of the features that were exposing our banking sector in recent years. I recall in the 2006 stability report the regulator drew our attention to the excessive growth in credit, the excessive reliance on the wholesale market to support that credit growth, the excessive reliance on the property sector as a proportion of the loan book, the falling provision for bad debt and the limitations of stress-testing that were going on in financial institutions.

There was warning that our financial structure was going down a road that was dangerous but, in my belief, little was done to address that. Indeed, we have been exposed by dangerous levels of credit expansion, particularly in the property sector and by a false belief, often promul[37]gated by Government, that this was based on sound fundamentals when the sound fundamentals of a small open economy clearly lie elsewhere. Indeed, the Government itself became excessively reliant on the product of this property boom and I am sure we will have another day to discuss that when we debate the budget.

The truth is that today, as a result of this serious change in the way we ran our economy, ordinary people are being hurt. That is the reality. There are now 75,000 extra people unemployed than there were 12 months ago. Young families are burdened with debts to pay for houses that they are unsure will ever be worth what they paid, and owe, for them. Sound businesses are beset with problems and some business people are having to face the tough decision that they will have to fold their business. People are facing foreclosure from banks where they struggle to meet repayments. Against that background, people will be wondering why the Dáil is moving to deal with a crisis in the financial sector. Why are we offering support, as people see it, in the financial sector when perhaps we are not being so generous with our support to some of these? That is an important question.

We are offering support to this Bill because we believe it is important that we copperfasten our financial system. We must all understand that a sound financial system is like the oil running through an engine. If that oil is drained away by a loss of confidence, then suddenly that engine seizes and the problems that beset people in our country who are facing the dole, who are struggling to meet their payments and who are encountering tough times in business, would get much worse. That is why we are supporting this approach. We believe it is timely to move and to deal with what would be a potential run on banks.

Simon Coveney wrote:

I support the initiative announced by the Government this morning which took many by surprise. However, few options were available to the Government this morning.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Thank you for accepting that you dont find Dan Boyle credilble.

Er...I stated it right back at the start of this. The thing is, though, that that doesn't mean "I'm not going to take his word on this issue, but reserve the right to quote him as a credible source if he ever agrees with me". It means I don't find Boyle credible even when he agrees with me.

I wonder if you can say as much - do you usually take statements by Boyle or Coveney at face value?

Heads the ball wrote: »

Do you find Vincent Browne credible on this issue?

He's asking questions, so the issue of his credibility doesn't really arise. If you mean, do I think Browne was right to challenge Boyle's assertions re the level of support the ECB was providing Irish banks in 2008, yes, I can safely say he was, because I've checked the figures myself.

Heads the ball wrote: »

No that is a help. Sort of. Although what you have really done is just reiterate that the Government should have made the decision. But to ease my mind can you show me that the cabinet took this decision as one cabinet as provided for in the Constitution and can you provide me with the transparency around the transaction - like who attened the meeting and who said what? I think the answer is "no, that information is not available."

And Im sure you will accept what I am asking for is not an unreasonable level of documentation/transparency.

Sure - in that sense I'd like a full verbatim record of every Cabinet meeting, and the same for the European Council and Council of Ministers while I'm at it.

But....

Heads the ball wrote: »

But I think where we differ is the degree of concern that we each have over its absence. I think that you think its case of sloppiness and nothing more - not trying to put words in your mouth. But I think it may be evidence of something that smells and its unforgivable that such a huge decision is not adequately documented in the interests of democracy and transparency.

...no, I don't think it's evidence of sloppiness. When did you last see a record of how a Cabinet decision was made?

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0930/economy.html

Here's another article suggesting that the European Commission hadn't even looked at the guarantee scheme before it went through the Dáil.

How about this article quoting the ECB as saying they think the bank guarantee was too generous, which would strongly suggest they didn't have a hand in it....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irish-debt-guarantee-scheme-too-generous-says-ecb-2008150.html

Then there is the ECBs opinion that was requested and published after the decision to guarantee the banks was taken, which makes no mention of bond holders:

http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/en_con_2008_48_f_sign.pdf

I've still to find anything that backs the notion that the ECB forced us to do anything in 2008.

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0930/economy.html

Here's another article suggesting that the European Commission hadn't even looked at the guarantee scheme before it went through the Dáil.

How about this article quoting the ECB as saying they think the bank guarantee was too generous, which would strongly suggest they didn't have a hand in it....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/irish-debt-guarantee-scheme-too-generous-says-ecb-2008150.html

Then there is the ECBs opinion that was requested and published after the decision to guarantee the banks was taken, which makes no mention of bond holders:

http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/en_con_2008_48_f_sign.pdf

I've still to find anything that backs the notion that the ECB forced us to do anything in 2008.

None of this is EVIDENCE

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

None of this is EVIDENCE

It's much better than what you've offered so far! Come on, Heads - evidence or retraction, please - if you like, I can put my mod hat on and require that formally, because it's not as if you haven't been given quite enough time to find the evidence, and it's been requested that you do so. No poster has the right to repeat unsubstantiated claims, and if challenged to provide substantiation - and you're being challenged to do so - they must do so.

informally for the last time,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

...no, I don't think it's evidence of sloppiness. When did you last see a record of how a Cabinet decision was made?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Im done, because in my opinion this is arguing for the sake of arguing. I say this because if you cannot see why this cabinet decision is different then we really have irreconcilable views.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Im done, because in my opinion this is arguing for the sake of arguing. I say this because if you cannot see why this cabinet decision is different then we really have irreconcilable views.

No, I entirely agree that in this case we should get to see the record of the decision in full. But that's not something the government has agreed to do, and is not something that can be legally imposed on them, as far as I'm aware, so as far as I can see we won't get to see it, despite our opinions.

Cabinet decision-making is not made public, this cabinet decision-making is not public - so far, then, that is the ordinary course, not an extraordinary course, and it is the course provided for in the Constitution:

3° The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter -

i in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or

ii by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.

That states that it is not even within the government's powers to decide to release Cabinet discussions unless ordered to do so by the High Court. Even for the government, they must first appoint a tribunal, and then the tribunal must apply to the High Court, and then the High Court must rule.

So it doesn't matter that "this decision is different", because "this decision is different" is only applicable at the end of a process involving a tribunal and the High Court. As such, making up scenarios that revolve around its non-release being something extraordinary in itself is CT stuff, because it is perfectly ordinary and constitutionally mandated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

Im done, because in my opinion this is arguing for the sake of arguing. I say this because if you cannot see why this cabinet decision is different then we really have irreconcilable views.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this cabinet decision was made any different to hundreds of others made by the cabinet. Claiming that it is different doesn't make it so.

Secondly, the constitutional provisions on cabinet confidentiality were approved by the electorate relatively recently so claims that "yes, the information should be made available" flies in the face of the electorate's decision.

And again, to reiterate, the cabinet could decide anything it wanted to in this case but it is the Oireachtas which got to make the ultimate decision. This they did in a normal democratic vote.

That vote doesn't become either "undemocratic" or "different" just because you disagree with it.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

None of this is EVIDENCE

Linking to and quoting from direct transcripts of Dáil sessions where Brian Lenihan described where the guarantee came from is FAR more than you've managed to do.

The articles show that the European Commission didn't look at the scheme until after the Dáil approved it:

RT&#201 wrote: »

The European Commission has said it would study details of the decision to see whether the move complied with EU competition rules.
A commission spokesperson said that the EC had been in touch with the Irish authorities and if there was any State aid involved it would look at it as a matter of urgency.

That the EU didn't fully agree with it:

Irish Independent wrote:

The highly influential European Centreal Bank (ECB) has questioned the way the Government plans to guarantee billions of euros of debt for the banks, saying the scheme may be too generous compared to those of other Europeancountries.

And that their opinion was only sought by us (note that we asked for it) after the Dáil voted:

Opinion of the ECB wrote:

On 10 October 2008 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from the Irish Minister for Finance (hereinafter the ‘Minister’) for an opinion on a draft Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Scheme 2008 (hereinafter the ‘draft scheme’) to be adopted by the Minister by means of a statutory instrument under the provisions of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).

What I've shown there - and again note that I have shown it not just said it - amounts to a sizable enough amount of proof that you are wrong. Of course you can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and la-la-la all the way home, but that still doesn't make you right. But at this point I think it's obvious you don't want to be right. You want to be outraged at someone else, blame someone else and make someone else pay regardless of the truth. Because it suits you. And that is where my involvement in this ends. There's no point in talking to someone who has no interest in listening.

Heads the ball

Since Dan Boyle is not credible.

Can anyone let me know if they find these sources credible please?

Micheal Martin
Catherine Murphy
Eamon Ryan
Vincent Brown

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Can anyone let me know if they find these sources credible please?

You're not getting this, are you?

You are the source that is not credible.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Since Dan Boyle is not credible.

Can anyone let me know if they find these sources credible please?

Micheal Martin
Catherine Murphy
Eamon Ryan
Vincent Brown

Ok let's see if I can make this simple for you. Take a look at what I did. I told you what Brian Lenihan said. Within the same post I gave you a link to where I found that information so that you could see that what I was saying was true.

Compare that to what you are doing. You are saying Dan Boyle is saying something, but not giving anyone else the source and therefore the ability to check it for themselves. We have to take your word for it that Dan Boyle said what you think he said in the context that you think he said it in. So regardless of what anyone thinks of Dan Boyle we still can't validate whether he even said what you are claiming he said. That is the major issue.

I could say Dan Boyle wrote a book about his personal experience with unicorns. Me saying it doesn't make it true though. If he did write a book about unicorns I could provide a link to it and then that would make it true. But until I provided the link all you'd have to go on is my word. And given that you have no idea who I am that really isn't very much is it?

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

Ok let's see if I can make this simple for you. Take a look at what I did. I told you what Brian Lenihan said. Within the same post I gave you a link to where I found that information so that you could see that what I was saying was true.

Compare that to what you are doing. You are saying Dan Boyle is saying something, but not giving anyone else the source and therefore the ability to check it for themselves. We have to take your word for it that Dan Boyle said what you think he said in the context that you think he said it in. So regardless of what anyone thinks of Dan Boyle we still can't validate whether he even said what you are claiming he said. That is the major issue.

I could say Dan Boyle wrote a book about his personal experience with unicorns. Me saying it doesn't make it true though. If he did write a book about unicorns I could provide a link to it and then that would make it true. But until I provided the link all you'd have to go on is my word. And given that you have no idea who I am that really isn't very much is it?

Did you even read my post? Beacuse you certainly didnt answer the question.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

Did you even read my post? Beacuse you certainly didnt answer the question.

Did you even read molloyjh's post? Because he most certainly did answer your question.

molloyjh

djpbarry wrote: »

Did you even read molloyjh's post? Because he most certainly did answer your question.

Technically speaking I suppose I didn't. Instead I pointed out why his question was invalid. Just to be clear I'll answer it directly now.

I tend not to find individuals credible or not. Points and opinions are credible or not credible. Even Vincent Browne, a guy I have little real time for generally, makes very astute and accurate observations. And it would be stupid of me to ignore everything he says because I don't like him. I'll judge each point individually on it's own merits. If Vincent Browne can state an opinion which he can back up then I'll take that seriously. If he makes a wild unsubstantiated allegation then I'll take it with a pinch of salt until such a time as I see evidence to support it.

In those last couple of points you may see how what I wrote previously bears relevance to your question. What's credible isn't the person, but the argument as supported by fact.

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

Ok let's see if I can make this simple for you. Take a look at what I did. I told you what Brian Lenihan said. Within the same post I gave you a link to where I found that information so that you could see that what I was saying was true.

Compare that to what you are doing. You are saying Dan Boyle is saying something, but not giving anyone else the source and therefore the ability to check it for themselves. We have to take your word for it that Dan Boyle said what you think he said in the context that you think he said it in. So regardless of what anyone thinks of Dan Boyle we still can't validate whether he even said what you are claiming he said. That is the major issue.

I could say Dan Boyle wrote a book about his personal experience with unicorns. Me saying it doesn't make it true though. If he did write a book about unicorns I could provide a link to it and then that would make it true. But until I provided the link all you'd have to go on is my word. And given that you have no idea who I am that really isn't very much is it?

molloyjh wrote: »

Technically speaking I suppose I didn't. Instead I pointed out why his question was invalid. Just to be clear I'll answer it directly now.

I tend not to find individuals credible or not. Points and opinions are credible or not credible. Even Vincent Browne, a guy I have little real time for generally, makes very astute and accurate observations. And it would be stupid of me to ignore everything he says because I don't like him. I'll judge each point individually on it's own merits. If Vincent Browne can state an opinion which he can back up then I'll take that seriously. If he makes a wild unsubstantiated allegation then I'll take it with a pinch of salt until such a time as I see evidence to support it.

In those last couple of points you may see how what I wrote previously bears relevance to your question. What's credible isn't the person, but the argument as supported by fact.

OK - so for argument sake, lets say these people said that there was ECB pressure to bail out the banks and if someone provided evidence of that - would you have an issue with the credibility of these people?

Let me just explain where Im going with this and sorry to keep going back to Dan Boyle, but the point is that if I produced a Dan Boyle quote, his credibility had already been maligned here by many posters so it wouldnt matter if there was a cast iron quoted by him signed, sealed and delivered and posted here as many posters here had formed the view that they just plain dont believe him.

So my question is, do you (and Scoff and anyone else) have and issues around believing the above named people?

Heads the ball

Heads the ball wrote: »

OK - so for argument sake, lets say these people said that there was ECB pressure to bail out the banks and if someone provided evidence of that - would you have an issue with the credibility of these people?

Let me just explain where Im going with this and sorry to keep going back to Dan Boyle, but the point is that if I produced a Dan Boyle quote, his credibility had already been maligned here by many posters so it wouldnt matter if there was a cast iron quoted by him signed, sealed and delivered and posted here as many posters here had formed the view that they just plain dont believe him.

So my question is, do you (and Scoff) have and issues around believing the above named people?

just produce the quote or stop. That's all anyone is asking.

View

To quote:

As a further general comment, the ECB notes that the Irish authorities have opted for an individual response to the current financial situation and not sought to consult their EU partners. In view of the similarities of the causes and consequences of the current financial distress across EU Member States and the potential interdependencies of policy responses, it would have been advisable to properly consult other EU authorities on the envisaged legislative plans.

That is from the ECB's opinion issued 4 days after the "guarantee" announcement (Section 2.4). They also point out in section 2.5 that the exposure of the state is "potentially very large" - a red flag for anyone who read their opinion. It should also be noted, in their opinion, they repeatedly refer to the proposed guarantee as "draft law" - in other words, it had not been adopted by the Oireachtas who did have time to consider the vote carefully.

Heads the ball

View wrote: »

To quote:



That is from the ECB's opinion issued 4 days after the "guarantee" announcement (Section 2.4). They also point out in section 2.5 that the exposure of the state is "potentially very large" - a red flag for anyone who read their opinion. It should also be noted, in their opinion, they repeatedly refer to the proposed guarantee as "draft law" - in other words, it had not been adopted by the Oireachtas who did have time to consider the vote carefully.

Yes. Of course they would say that! They are not going to admit that they bullied us into it are they?

K-9

Right, can we drop this now as it is taking over the thead. Heads the ball isn't going to produce the quotes so posters can make of that what they will.

View

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes. Of course they would say that! They are not going to admit that they bullied us into it are they?

The evidence points clearly to us "exercising our sovereignty" in a unilateral fashion and doing so even when explicitly warned by the ECB of the potential danger.

That is backed up by the Oireachtas voting record.

The onus remains on you to prove your "bullying" assertion although the indications to date are you are unable to do so.

PS Apologies for missing the Mod warning.

murphaph

Edit.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Right, can we drop this now as it is taking over the thead. Heads the ball isn't going to produce the quotes so posters can make of that what they will.

Just to reiterate that point and strengthen it somewhat. Heads the Ball is no longer entitled to make that claim in the forum unless he/she backs it up. Reiterating the claim without such backup will lead to infractions and/or bans.

The logic of this is simple. Continuing to claim something for which one cannot or will not provide any sources is something that's really not acceptable, and Heads has been unable to provide even a link to his claimed sources.

Otherwise the claim will continue to be made, and every time it's challenged it will be the same rigmarole. You cannot continue to make claims you cannot provide any evidence for.

Just to clarify that further, there are two issues here: first, the claim that the ECB pressured us into the bailout; second, the claim that Dan Boyle and Simon Coveney have both made the same claim.

The first claim is not ruled out by the failure to provide evidence for the second, but the second definitely is. In other words, Heads the Ball can repeat a claim that the ECB pressured us into a bailout, since that's his honest opinion, but cannot claim as supporting evidence for his opinion the claim to be backed by either Dan Boyle or Simon Coveney - unless of course he/she can provide the necessary material. In the case of the first and larger claim, if Heads the Ball wishes to repeat it still without providing evidence but also without repeating the second claim, he/she is entitled to do so, but must accept that he/she has been unable to provide any positive evidence for the claim. Any attempt to go down the route we've seen in this thread will result, in the first instance, in an infraction and a 3-day ban, with rapidly escalating penalties for further offences.

Opinion is opinion - everyone is entitled to hold their own opinion, but they are not entitled to misrepresent it as grounded in fact if they cannot demonstrate those facts.



moderately,
Scofflaw

shortys94

The social welfare is way too high, I was in the post office today for the first time in awhile and there was a big line, figured it was people posting things off but they all had this magical card which gave them money for being in pajamas. I'd say 2000 was given out in the time I was there, its crazy

EchoO

shortys94 wrote: »

The social welfare is way too high, I was in the post office today for the first time in awhile and there was a big line, figured it was people posting things off but they all had this magical card which gave them money for being in pajamas. I'd say 2000 was given out in the time I was there, its crazy

The post office being busy is indicative of a very high unemployment rate, nothing else.

Farmer Pudsey

Social welfare, health care, education, public service pay and level of public services are all about affordability. At present we cannot afford the present level of all of these. The realty out there is that people at work in the private sector have borne a higher level of pain than other sectors.

At the end of july the independant published a report that half of Irish buisness were under pressure due to the downturn.

http://www.independent.ie/business/small-business/half-of-irish-businesses-on-verge-of-collapse-new-survey-shows-3186215.html

We simply have to make choices in an ideal world we would like to have a high level of social support however due to our level of debt this is not possible. People at work in lower paid sections of the PS and in the private sector cannot any longer afford to support these level of payments. Unless we begin to selectivly cut certain area's it may come to the situtation that we will have a complete collapse of the economy.

For a lot of unemployed it would not pay them to take up jobs on the minimum wage. We went through this in the late 70's and early 80's and we tried to tax our way out of the recession we are doing the same again. If people on SW do not have to pay water rates, household charges etc then the rate needs to be reduced. We need a complete health package for workers as well as the unemployed and the same for third level benifits. We cannot have the situtation where the PAYE sector through means testing bear a larger share of the burden than other sectors.

The move now to tax CB is a example of being unfair to PAYE workers.It is the same with third level grants. The eligibility levels are so low that the family earning between 50-100k will be expected to shoulder more of the burden than they should have to.

Take a family in this situtation over the next 5 years you will see a property tax of about 1000 euro's at least, water rates of about 300 euro's if CB is means tested/taxes it will cost these family's about 300 euro's per child and third level fees will rise by about 250 euro's /year so that will be anothe 12-1500 euro's. There will also be rises in car tax and fuel taxes which will again hit workers more than most in the economy.

So an average family that works will get hit by somewhere in the region 3-6k depending on there situtation. During the last few years they have been hit to the tune of 2-3K already over and above the rest of the economy.

If we do not relise that we have to reward work and especially workers in low- middle income's in the private sector then I am afraid that we will not come out of this recession and there will be no growth.

jimmycrackcorm

We had a family friend call round today who is on S/W. Last month she moved into a nice new house paid by R/A. Tonight when arrived in a new car (albeit 2 years old) and is heading off on a two week sun holiday tomorrow.

I don't actually begrudge any of this but it annoys me that the left go on about Austerity and how much it affects societies poorest. Who exactly are the poorest?

K3lso

"If you pay people not to work and then tax them when they do - don't be surprised if you end up with unemployment" - Milton Friedman.

Social welfare benefits are ludicrous in this country. We need to have a discussion on reigning them in considerably. I'm not attacking the poorest in Irish society - only contributing some common sense. The fact of the matter is that a huge amount of people feel entitled to these benefits - where exactly do people on welfare think this money comes from? It doesn't just fall right out of the sky. It comes from money plundered from the private sector that's just about keeping this economy afloat as is.

I say lay off the incomes related taxes. Let the people earn and keep 100% the fruits of their own labour. This accomplishes several things but not least the motivation to secure work and keep all of your earnings, tax free. Secondly, it allows people to retain a significant amount of disposable income in their back pockets to stimulate the economy instead of the government acting like a warden directing traffic.

So what can be done to reduce welfare and get people back to work? Many things - we can discuss how payments can reduce over time. Perhaps a receiver would receive E20 less each week the longer one is on welfare. This would serve as a motivator to get back to work. Another possibility that has been mentioned many times on this site as well as others would be vouchers instead of cash. The vouchers would only allow for edible food items and not vices such as alcohol and cigarettes. This would give another incentive to work. Another decision that needs to be made is the immediate cessation of payments going to those convicted of criminal offenses.

Now that we've outlined motivations to get off welfare, how will low-skilled workers find work. Firstly, we need to abolish the minimum wage law. The only people in favour of minimum wage laws throughout history have been the unions. This is all about job protectionism. People tend to think that minimum wage requirements are benevolent but they don't see the destruction it does to the economy as a whole. If there are pay laws in place, then employers want to get the best bang for their buck naturally. To this end, those that are not skilled or educated enough for an employer to justify paying the minimum wage of E350/week are forever destined to the unemployment queues and thus, create a drag on the economy. It also stops employers from taking on low-skilled workers for a cost agreed upon by both parties so that the low skilled worker can obtain some much needed and invaluable experience in the work place.

There are a lot of decisions that need to be made and it's clear to see that Labour and Fine Gael just don't have the stomach for it. This is a banana republic in every sense of the word.

Heads the ball

K3lso wrote: »

"If you pay people not to work and then tax them when they do - don't be surprised if you end up with unemployment" - Milton Friedman.

Social welfare benefits are ludicrous in this country. We need to have a discussion on reigning them in considerably. I'm not attacking the poorest in Irish society - only contributing some common sense. The fact of the matter is that a huge amount of people feel entitled to these benefits - where exactly do people on welfare think this money comes from? It doesn't just fall right out of the sky. It comes from money plundered from the private sector that's just about keeping this economy afloat as is.

I say lay off the incomes related taxes. Let the people earn and keep 100% the fruits of their own labour. This accomplishes several things but not least the motivation to secure work and keep all of your earnings, tax free. Secondly, it allows people to retain a significant amount of disposable income in their back pockets to stimulate the economy instead of the government acting like a warden directing traffic.

So what can be done to reduce welfare and get people back to work? Many things - we can discuss how payments can reduce over time. Perhaps a receiver would receive E20 less each week the longer one is on welfare. This would serve as a motivator to get back to work. Another possibility that has been mentioned many times on this site as well as others would be vouchers instead of cash. The vouchers would only allow for edible food items and not vices such as alcohol and cigarettes. This would give another incentive to work. Another decision that needs to be made is the immediate cessation of payments going to those convicted of criminal offenses.

Now that we've outlined motivations to get off welfare, how will low-skilled workers find work. Firstly, we need to abolish the minimum wage law. The only people in favour of minimum wage laws throughout history have been the unions. This is all about job protectionism. People tend to think that minimum wage requirements are benevolent but they don't see the destruction it does to the economy as a whole. If there are pay laws in place, then employers want to get the best bang for their buck naturally. To this end, those that are not skilled or educated enough for an employer to justify paying the minimum wage of E350/week are forever destined to the unemployment queues and thus, create a drag on the economy. It also stops employers from taking on low-skilled workers for a cost agreed upon by both parties so that the low skilled worker can obtain some much needed and invaluable experience in the work place.

There are a lot of decisions that need to be made and it's clear to see that Labour and Fine Gael just don't have the stomach for it. This is a banana republic in every sense of the word.

This is not a realistic suggestion.

The problen with jobs at tge moment is a supply side issue - as in there are not enough jobs out there. There are very few employers out there saying "we cant get anyone to do this job because welfare is too high".

Also, if you apply, as you suggest a zero income tax rate where are you going to make that money back? Seems we're at full stretch so its not feasible to do that

i dont think your "motivational" approach is right. Very few people out there would turn down a paying job

K3lso

Heads the ball wrote: »

This is not a realistic suggestion.

The problen with jobs at tge moment is a supply side issue - as in there are not enough jobs out there. There are very few employers out there saying "we cant get anyone to do this job because welfare is too high".

Also, if you apply, as you suggest a zero income tax rate where are you going to make that money back? Seems we're at full stretch so its not feasible to do that

i dont think your "motivational" approach is right. Very few people out there would turn down a paying job

I disagree.

Employers cannot take on an extra hand or give on-the-job work experience needed to obtain a high paying position in the future if there are minimum wage laws in place. For example, you say there are not enough jobs out there - the problem is not that there are not enough jobs, a "job" can come from just about anywhere. I can create a job right now by hiring the next person to walk past my gate to tend my garden for the next month. I would though have a serious problem with wage laws though. The problem arises when business owners don't have enough money to take on extra workers. In my example, taking on new people is not a decision of mine or the next person to walk by my garden. The decision on whether the guy gets hired by me or not is determined by a government bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere.

It's this bureaucrat that has denied the guy a job, not me and not the business owners out there. I also disagree with people not turning down paying jobs. I know several people first hand that quite enjoy their life on the dole queue. The benefits they receive out-weight any inconvenience met by working full time in a job. It's just taboo to say it aloud. I'm not quite sure what you meant by saying "we cant get anyone to do this job because welfare is too high"....

Lastly, I don't agree with this "we're at full stretch" business. I didn't cause the crisis, you didn't cause this crisis and neither did the average Joe in the street. I'm not sure about you but I feel no obligation to repay or 'do my share' as they say. It's nothing got to do with me whatsoever so why should the ordinary people in the street be punished further for the incompetence of a group of tweedle-dums that wouldn't be within 100 miles of a government building in any other country. I would advocate getting rid of income taxes all together. Income taxes kill the creation of jobs and harm workers, not employers the most. Why? Because while the left sing that those with the extra cash should pay more, the employers will simply pass the tax onto the workers. This does two things, not least that an extra job is lost now in the workplace because taxes to a government needs to be paid. Income taxes do a lot more harm than you'd imagine. I'm completely against them.

Heads the ball

K3lso wrote: »

I disagree.

Employers cannot take on an extra hand or give on-the-job work experience needed to obtain a high paying position in the future if there are minimum wage laws in place. For example, you say there are not enough jobs out there - the problem is not that there are not enough jobs, a "job" can come from just about anywhere. I can create a job right now by hiring the next person to walk past my gate to tend my garden for the next month. I would though have a serious problem with wage laws though. The problem arises when business owners don't have enough money to take on extra workers. In my example, taking on new people is not a decision of mine or the next person to walk by my garden. The decision on whether the guy gets hired by me or not is determined by a government bureaucrat sitting in an office somewhere.

It's this bureaucrat that has denied the guy a job, not me and not the business owners out there. I also disagree with people not turning down paying jobs. I know several people first hand that quite enjoy their life on the dole queue. The benefits they receive out-weight any inconvenience met by working full time in a job. It's just taboo to say it aloud. I'm not quite sure what you meant by saying "we cant get anyone to do this job because welfare is too high"....

Lastly, I don't agree with this "we're at full stretch" business. I didn't cause the crisis, you didn't cause this crisis and neither did the average Joe in the street. I'm not sure about you but I feel no obligation to repay or 'do my share' as they say. It's nothing got to do with me whatsoever so why should the ordinary people in the street be punished further for the incompetence of a group of tweedle-dums that wouldn't be within 100 miles of a government building in any other country. I would advocate getting rid of income taxes all together. Income taxes kill the creation of jobs and harm workers, not employers the most. Why? Because while the left sing that those with the extra cash should pay more, the employers will simply pass the tax onto the workers. This does two things, not least that an extra job is lost now in the workplace because taxes to a government needs to be paid. Income taxes do a lot more harm than you'd imagine. I'm completely against them.

Sorry, but what has "bureaucrats not allowing you to hire someone" got to do with welfare? Was the thrust of one of your earlier posts that welfare is too high? What's this got to do with bureaucrats?

If you don't agree we are at full stretch then why are you suggesting we cut welfare?

K3lso

Heads the ball wrote: »

Sorry, but what has "bureaucrats not allowing you to hire someone" got to do with welfare? Was the thrust of one of your earlier posts that welfare is too high? What's this got to do with bureaucrats?

If you don't agree we are at full stretch then why are you suggesting we cut welfare?

I agree we need to close a deficit and install some balanced budget asap - what I don't agree with is that this has anything to do with me and that I am to pay for the incompetency of government to let it get out of hand in the first place or bail out corporations and then come looking for a hand out to run "services" i.e - keep these massively paid public sector workers and quango queens/kings living the high life. You'd swear some of these gangsters had built a private business empire judging by their salaries.

My referral to "bureaucrats" stems from your initial point about no jobs being available out there. I was of course saying that a job can be created almost anywhere one person is willing to pay another - there would be more jobs created if a) there was no income related taxes on earnings and b) the government kept out of regulating employment (minimum wages).
It's a common misconception but government don't create jobs, businesses do and it's the government regulation that are killing jobs opportunities.