IMF: social welfare benefits 'too high'

Head The Wall

Ah yes, politicians. The bastions of truth and honesty. I would definitely trust them before everyone else

Heads the ball

Head The Wall wrote: »

Ah yes, politicians. The bastions of truth and honesty. I would definitely trust them before everyone else

and the evidence you are producing is...?

K-9

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

No sir. I havent deduced anything. I have taken boyle and coveney at their word.

In my opinion the only significance of the lack of paperwork is, it can hardly be held out as evidence that the transaction was unilateral. In fact, if the paperwork is significant it can only support the ssertion that the deal was shady.


It certainly cannot be brushed of
As pub talk

Head The Wall

Heads the ball wrote: »

and the evidence you are producing is...?

Well to get the ball rolling e have election manifestos, tribunals, soft landing and on and on. Now where's your proof that the ECB forced the Irish govt into the guarantee?

Heads the ball

Heads the ball wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Look. The most I am willing to give you is:

There is no documentation surrounding the bailout and as a result I can accept that you would take the view that it was an above-board, cabinet decision made without duress and interference.

HOWEVER as a result of their being good evidence from TDs that we were forced into it and coupled with the fact that I dont believe any party in their right mind would have issued a blanket guarantee and coupled with the fact that there absolutely was no documentation (which makes me more worried about the bona fides of the transaction, not less worried!) I take the view that it was an ECB hatchett job.

Now I know you dismiss Dan Boyle and Coveney and thats fine that you dont want to rely on them. But to dismiss my opinion as "pub talk" just because you believe the opposite to be true is a bit silly in my opinion.

I think you are trying to kind of use the "innocent until proven guilty" approach here in that as there was no documentation that it was a dodgey deal, then it must have been all above board in your opinion and anything to the contrary is pub talk because it isnt backed up by evidence. I think thats a little naive personally. And I think if people pulled that card on these forums when debating anything which is questionable, then a lot of conversations would never get off the ground.

The way to seal the argument is: I am pointing to the evidence of TDs and that is much more weighty than your opinion which involves no more than pointing to the fact that no one chose to actually document what would have been a dodgey deal.

So on that basis I would say my opinion is further from pub talk than your see-no-evil opinion.

We do have David McWilliams book where Lenihan visited him and McWilliams put forward his guarantee idea. We don't have any evidence from Brussels naturally because they weren't involved, indeed the Brussels was apparently very peed off at the unilateral guarantee when they wanted a co-ordinated approach.

There is a big concern over the lack of paperwork in Dublin, not in Brussels! You've somehow deduced from that, that the EU was involved. To carry on your logic, I think the US was involved too, sure they've no paperwork either.

No sir. I havent deduced anything. I have taken boyle and coveney at their word.

In my opinion the only significance of the lack of paperwork is, it can hardly be held out as evidence that the transaction was unilateral. In fact, if the paperwork is significant it can only support the ssertion that the deal was shady.


It certainly cannot be brushed of
As pub talk

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

K-9

Heads the ball wrote: »

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

Unlikely but their banks and investment funds had a lot to lose, big players. They've no paper trail so it is indeed possible!

We know paperwork is missing or wasn't recorded in Dublin, you are saying this conspiracy extended to Brussels based on a Senator who wasn't party to the events and an opposition TD.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Dont you see why your US analogy is crazy?

Unlikely but their banks and investment funds had a lot to lose, big players. They've no paper trail so it is indeed possible!

We know paperwork is missing or wasn't recorded in Dublin, you are saying this conspiracy extended to Brussels based on a Senator who wasn't party to the events and an opposition TD.

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Not quite, but chapter and verse of the available evidence is well off topic. Frankly, it's sufficient to reiterate the point that your claim has no evidence to back it at all, which is frankly bizarre for a event that supposedly resulted in a country taking on half a trillion in bank debt on the orders of an international body. The belief that such things happen without any paper trail belongs more in the CT forum, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

The ecb had motive means and oppurtunity. The US had none of the above.

Sorry i am fine if you dont believe those sources but they carry more weight with me than scoffslaws OPINIONS which are themselves nothinh better than pub chat

Not quite, but chapter and verse of the available evidence is well off topic. Frankly, it's sufficient to reiterate the point that your claim has no evidence to back it at all, which is frankly bizarre for a event that supposedly resulted in a country taking on half a trillion in bank debt on the orders of an international body. The belief that such things happen without any paper trail belongs more in the CT forum, to be honest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Amazing.

Theres no evidence to back up my claim.. Other than TDs statements... Oh but i forgot you dont believe them sp it can be dismissed as pub talk. Wow.

About the paper trail. Ever heard of a telephone?

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

I would accept that SOME probably could meet emergencies through savings...

So you must accept that some welfare recipients could get by with lower payments.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes it is. Im happy to retract that and refer to them as the "welfare-recieving classes."

I was unaware that welfare recipients belong to a particular class?

You’re aware that about half the population are in receipt of some form of social welfare payment, yes?

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Amazing.

Theres no evidence to back up my claim.. Other than TDs statements... Oh but i forgot you dont believe them sp it can be dismissed as pub talk. Wow.

Sure, because one of them is repeating pub talk, while the other is talking about something else. Also, to be frank, you wouldn't take either of them at their word usually, I think.

Heads the ball wrote: »

About the paper trail. Ever heard of a telephone?

Um, yes. It's not very useful except for initial discussions, because there's no sign-off, hence verbal contracts being meaningless legally - that's why there's lots of paper generated when these things happen, so that everyone can point to what has been required of them and show the authority it's been required under. And there is lots of paper from the guarantee decision, none of which is ECB paper: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/PAC/Reports/document1.htm

You won't get a fiver out of the Irish government without a signature, but you nevertheless believe that half a trillion was guaranteed on the basis of an answerphone message (that being all the ECB contact Lenihan claimed), without anyone even checking back to see what was actually intended or whether the message was genuine. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Geuze

I actually think Unemployment Insurance (UI) payments are too low.

In the USA they vary by state, but can be up to 450 USD per week.

In Germany about 60-67% of your former wages.

In Sweden, 80% of former pay.

Here, it's 188 pw flat-rate.

I think the problem is with the duration, not the level.

In most countries, it drops or stops altogether after 6 or 12 or 24 months, and people move onto no payment (USA) or a subsistence payment.

Geuze

One suggestion is to copy the USA and extend the duration of UI during a recession.

USA normal UI = 26 weeks, but extended now to 99 weeks.

Search for "99ers" on www.google.com, you will read about people coming up to the 99th week of UI payments.

Example:

JSB for 12 months normally
18 months if UNR > 8%
24 months if UNR > 10%

Payment level

The US pay 50% of former wages, subject to ceilings.

I suggest:

50% of former pay (wage ceiling = 700pw) for 6 months, max = 350pw
40% of former wage for next 6 months, max = 280pw
Then maybe another cut for next 12 months.

Geuze

With two years JSB, I would then abolish JSA.

It would be replaced with optional / voluntary jobs, i.e. the State would organise for everybody over 2 years unemployed to be offered work.

Call it workfare if you like.

Payment = 250 pw, 50 per day.

If people refuse, then move onto SWA at 125 pw.

Farmer Pudsey

Geuze wrote: »

With two years JSB, I would then abolish JSA.

It would be replaced with optional / voluntary jobs, i.e. the State would organise for everybody over 2 years unemployed to be offered work.

Call it workfare if you like.

Payment = 250 pw, 50 per day.

If people refuse, then move onto SWA at 125 pw.

This would cost extra so government cannot fund as troika would not agree. Also it wold cost satate more to employ people in made up jobs.

How about if you are unemployed longer that 12 months you have to work 7 days a fortnight over 50 euros/day for local council, community, tidy towns etc and they pay the surplas to employ you.

Sand

How about if you are unemployed longer that 12 months you have to work 7 days a fortnight over 50 euros/day for local council, community, tidy towns etc and they pay the surplas to employ you.

And the local council would sack the workers who usually do those jobs.

Any of these "make-work" schemes which require some sort of work in exchange for the dole are essentially driving people out of jobs which - if worth doing -would otherwise be done by workers hired like any other.

Geuze

No, there is so much work to do that there is enough work for the existing staff plus more.

Tea drinker

Geuze wrote: »

No, there is so much work to do that there is enough work for the existing staff plus more.

I agree with this. There is a perception of the previous back to work scheme that people end up working in shops or warehouses, putting a guy out of work , and are themselves replaced by the next back to work guy. So effectively one additional person becomes unemployed with all costs passed to the state, no additional productivity.

Maybe a pre-requisite is that no one can be driven out of employment as a result of any of these schemes. There's any number of maintenance type activities to be done around, e.g. Marlay park is in a mess, obviously the guys who are employed can't cope, some streets are dirty, motorway maintenance is noticably worse. Community care is one possible area, though not as transparent as working on a supervised group.

Thinking bigger, is there some way the stimulus can be used to get people into workshops (any number of premium quality empty warehouses) on a one or 2 day a week brainstorming sessions?
Help people building businesses out of ideas.

creedp

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, recklessly weak regulation that allowed the banks to pile up risk.


I'm not sure how that's the fault of the ECB - the Irish banks were regulated by the Irish Financial Regulator, whose job it was to ensure they weren't building up unacceptable risks, and who unfortunately left it to the banks to tell him whether they were. Naturally, they thought everything was just fine until everything exploded - an entirely predictable outcome, and the reason for having a regulator in the first place.

I'm not going to get involved in the overall debate here but I'm interested in this point that naturally banks couldn't be expected to properly govern themselves without some form of big brother breathing down their necks. What happened to the famed inate accountability/responsibility of the free market capitalist system? We hear all the time that Govt should get out of the economy and let it manage itself as only the market has the expertise to do this well. In fairness sure won't the executives be concerned about shareholder value and do everything possible to increase this value in the long term? Now of course we find that unless Govt is breathing down their necks they'll make a complete balls of it.

Now please continue on as I'm very intersted in the broader issues being discussed here.

Colours

Tea drinker wrote: »

There's any number of maintenance type activities to be done around, e.g. Marlay park is in a mess, obviously the guys who are employed can't cope, some streets are dirty, motorway maintenance is noticably worse. Community care is one possible area, though not as transparent as working on a supervised group.

That's a great idea Teadrinker! There are plenty of jobs to be done filling in all the potholes on our roads. It doesn't have to be too sophisticated a process either - just fill the hole with rubbish and sand and gravel to get it to a somewhat level surface. How about a tenner a pothole? I'd be up for taking that on myself.

I've been loosely following this thread as a lot of the comments have sort of gone over my head but if I've picked up on one of the ideas correctly, there's a suggestion that the blanket bank bailout authorised by our government in 2008 was as a result of being bullied into it by the ECB and that they've been engaging in a massive cover up of this ever since? If that is indeed what's being suggested then I'd dismiss it - in the same way I would most other conspiracy theories involving cover-ups - because this would have required the government to be extremely organised which it is not - nor are most administrations involving a relatively large group of people - as well as relying on all its members to be sworn to secrecy forever as well as lots of covert meetings to work out the finer niggly detailsinvolved in conducting a transaction of such astronomical scale.

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Amazing.

Theres no evidence to back up my claim.. Other than TDs statements... Oh but i forgot you dont believe them sp it can be dismissed as pub talk. Wow.

About the paper trail. Ever heard of a telephone?

You don't get a car loan from your bank on the back of a telephone call, how the hell can a Government bail out be based on one!?

All these posts amount to is someone who has formed their opinion on the basis of nothing more than here-say and is insistent that their opinion is the right one. Fact and reason are things to be dismissed because the opinion is right.

The Social Welfare bill in this country is too high, and those on JSA can take a hit and still afford the basics. Without evidence to the contrary this will remain my opinion. A random punter saying things are "tough" is meaningless without context. And given my own position I'm fairly sure €752 more than covers an individuals monthly basics.

You are asserting that my opinion is incorrect. If you truly believe that it is, and are really that passionate about it I suggest you research the cost of the various basics and come back to us with a detailed breakdown of how and why €752 a month isn't enough, i.e. what they won't be able to afford. It shouldn't be that hard to do given on-line shopping etc. That way you can make you're case with something solid behind it, if in fact you have one.

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, because one of them is repeating pub talk, while the other is talking about something else. Also, to be frank, you wouldn't take either of them at their word usually, I think.



Um, yes. It's not very useful except for initial discussions, because there's no sign-off, hence verbal contracts being meaningless legally - that's why there's lots of paper generated when these things happen, so that everyone can point to what has been required of them and show the authority it's been required under. And there is lots of paper from the guarantee decision, none of which is ECB paper: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/PAC/Reports/document1.htm

You won't get a fiver out of the Irish government without a signature, but you nevertheless believe that half a trillion was guaranteed on the basis of an answerphone message (that being all the ECB contact Lenihan claimed), without anyone even checking back to see what was actually intended or whether the message was genuine. It's conspiracy theory stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fair enough. You dont believe the sources I cited. Thats fine I dont have a problem with this. Its just you cant then dismiss it as pub talk.

About the lack of paper, I see the comparison you are making to everyday transactions where there is a paper trail. The reason why that comparison doesnt fit here is that this kind of interference would be extraordinary and borderline illegal and a politically poisonous decision. A series of phone calls that simply say "you must not let a bank fail or a bondholder lose a penny" wouldnt need to be checked and rechecked as its not an ambigous statement. To suggest that messages cant be conveyed in any manner other than in writing is not accurate

I fully accept that you dont accept the evidence of the events of that night, and indeed you point to the lack of evidence as evidence that everything was above board. Fair enough. I respect that. But again, it cant be dismissed as pub talk just because you dont accept the evidence.

In fact the evidence that the ECB forced us to bail out the banks is very convincing:

A number of TDs have said the ECB did force us to bail out the banks,

Indeed this position ("dont let a bank fail") is entirely consistent with the ECBs latter actions and policies (ie that no bondholder should take a penny of a hit),

There is no transparency around that cabinet decision (in terms of documentation etc) again this is evidence of the transaction not being at arms length; it is not (as you have tried to say before) evidence which supports the bona fides of the transaction ,

The guarantee in itself was a bizarre decision in that it was so unqualuified and absolute (there was no strings attached) and that would be highly unusual decision for a politician to make,

The guarantee was also bizzare in that it covered institutions which it really should not have (ie Anglo and Nationwide)

There was no evidence of a cost v benefit analysis being perfomed which is evidence that it wasnt an arms length transaction, in fact it appears that they really didnt have a clue as to the losses in the banks - again very unlikely that a government with its eyes open would have done this,

The ECB had motive, means and opportunity to do this (sorry if I sound like Sherlock Holmes).

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Fair enough. You dont believe the sources I cited. Thats fine I dont have a problem with this. Its just you cant then dismiss it as pub talk.

About the lack of paper, I see the comparison you are making to everyday transactions where there is a paper trail. The reason why that comparison doesnt fit here is that this kind of interference would be extraordinary and borderline illegal and a politically poisonous decision. A series of phone calls that simply say "you must not let a bank fail or a bondholder lose a penny" wouldnt need to be checked and rechecked as its not an ambigous statement. To suggest that messages cant be conveyed in any manner other than in writing is not accurate

I fully accept that you dont accept the evidence of the events of that night, and indeed you point to the lack of evidence as evidence that everything was above board. Fair enough. I respect that. But again, it cant be dismissed as pub talk just because you dont accept the evidence.

In fact the evidence that the ECB forced us to bail out the banks is very convincing:

A number of TDs have said the ECB did force us to bail out the banks,

Indeed this position ("dont let a bank fail") is entirely consistent with the ECBs latter actions and policies (ie that no bondholder should take a penny of a hit),

There is no transparency around that cabinet decision (in terms of documentation etc) again this is evidence of the transaction not being at arms length; it is not (as you have tried to say before) evidence which supports the bona fides of the transaction ,

The guarantee in itself was a bizarre decision in that it was so unqualuified and absolute (there was no strings attached) and that would be highly unusual decision for a politician to make,

The guarantee was also bizzare in that it covered institutions which it really should not have (ie Anglo and Nationwide)

There was no evidence of a cost v benefit analysis being perfomed which is evidence that it wasnt an arms length transaction, in fact it appears that they really didnt have a clue as to the losses in the banks - again very unlikely that a government with its eyes open would have done this,

The ECB had motive, means and opportunity to do this (sorry if I sound like Sherlock Holmes).

That's an awful lot of dressing up of the fact that your whole body of evidence consists of uncited comments by two TDs, one of whom, as far as I know, was referring to something else entirely...

I appreciate I'm not going to change your mind here, of course - but Sherlock Holmes you ain't! This is Lestrade stuff - "I know who dunnit, I don't need no evidence".

amused,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's an awful lot of dressing up of the fact that your whole body of evidence consists of uncited comments by two TDs, one of whom, as far as I know, was referring to something else entirely...

Its not. Its fairly strong evidence. The comments are not uncited. The comments related to the bail out.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I appreciate I'm not going to change your mind here, of course - but Sherlock Holmes you ain't! This is Lestrade stuff - "I know who dunnit, I don't need no evidence".

Not sure what to say to this, I listed the evidence above. But of course that evidence cant beat your demand that it "is only aul pub talk" or clever catchphrases like the one you put above. Sure who needs evidence when you have clever remarks like that?

It would be better for you now to admit that accepting that the ECB insisted on us bailing out the banks is inconvenient for you as it doesnt fit with your general economic and political views that:

everything has been managed fairly well to date and we need to keep cutting and slashing our way outta this recession and

to-hell with arguments of morality or questions relating to democratic deficits in Europe and

to-hell with questions that ask "is Europe good for us at all"

Scofflaw wrote: »

amused,
Scofflaw

Ah very clever

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Its not. Its fairly strong evidence. The comments are not uncited. The comments related to the bail out.

By uncited he means that you have not provided a link to the quotes to allow people to see them for themselves and judge what was actually said and the context in which it was said.

Heads the ball wrote: »

Not sure what to say to this, I listed the evidence above. But of course that evidence cant beat your demand that it "is only aul pub talk" or clever catchphrases like the one you put above. Sure who needs evidence when you have clever remarks like that?

Evidence is not "I heard about someone who said this". Evidence is the provision of a direct link to what was actually said. You haven't provided that, therefore all you have provided is here-say.

Heads the ball wrote: »

It would be better for you now to admit that accepting that the ECB insisted on us bailing out the banks is inconvenient for you as it doesnt fit with your general economic and political views that:

everything has been managed fairly well to date and we need to keep cutting and slashing our way outta this recession and

to-hell with arguments of morality or questions relating to democratic deficits in Europe and

to-hell with questions that ask "is Europe good for us at all"

That's just plainly putting words into peoples mouths. You talk of morality and democratic deficits while expecting many already struggling workers to take cuts to protect the minority. I'm even afraid to ask what you mean by democratic deficits given that I think I already know the answer.

The simple fact appears to me to be that you have bought into a lot of the hysteria that's been about, mainly driven by media outlets with a lose enough grip on the reality of the situation and left-wing politicians with their own agenda. There are serious issues with a lot of things - including how we got to where we are and how our Government(s) chose to deal with it. Nobody has ever claimed differently. But because Scofflaw doesn't agree with you you've decided he obviously blindly believes that everything is ok. And that's because it's much easier to assume that he's completely off the wall than even contemplate the possibility that maybe you're not completely right.

Farmer Pudsey

Tea drinker wrote: »

I agree with this. There is a perception of the previous back to work scheme that people end up working in shops or warehouses, putting a guy out of work , and are themselves replaced by the next back to work guy. So effectively one additional person becomes unemployed with all costs passed to the state, no additional productivity.

Maybe a pre-requisite is that no one can be driven out of employment as a result of any of these schemes. There's any number of maintenance type activities to be done around, e.g. Marlay park is in a mess, obviously the guys who are employed can't cope, some streets are dirty, motorway maintenance is noticably worse. Community care is one possible area, though not as transparent as working on a supervised group.

Thinking bigger, is there some way the stimulus can be used to get people into workshops (any number of premium quality empty warehouses) on a one or 2 day a week brainstorming sessions?
Help people building businesses out of ideas.[/QUOTE]

I highlighted as I want to deal with that. It would have to be public work schenes that are labour intensive or community work scheme. If you allow it into private sector it will give some employers a compeditive advantage over other employers and put other workers out of work.

If i was a builder doing extensions if I could reduce by labour costs by 10% it would give me an advantage.

There is alot of public work not being done. Also there is no reason that teachers, nurses etc that are unemployed cannot work for one or two days aweek to get benifit after the first year. The same with tradesmen they could have to work for the local council/community for to earn benifit after 12 months. There is a perception that you are entitled to benifit and the state should support you if you do not get the job that suits you.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

In fact the evidence that the ECB forced us to bail out the banks is very convincing....

The only evidence you have presented is some comments from opposition TD’s, who of course would never ever say anything with the sole intention of scoring popular support, would they?

The rest of your “evidence” is merely a series of observations you have made which conform to your pre-conceived notion of conspiracy. An absence of evidence provides evidence for nothing.

Heads the ball

At the end of the day pals there is no evidence that it was a decision free from interference.

There is evidence that we were forced to do so... By elected politicians. But of course when that doesnt suit the particukar view favoured here it can be dismissed as "hearsay", "unreliable" amd "pub talk'

Im afraid any reasonable person reading this objectively will see how delluded you are on this issue

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

At the end of the day pals there is no evidence that it was a decision free from interference.

How does one provide negative evidence?

Heads the ball wrote: »

There is evidence that we were forced to do so... By elected politicians. But of course when that doesnt suit the particukar view favoured here it can be dismissed as "hearsay", "unreliable" amd "pub talk'

I think you’ll find it’s being dismissed as unreliable hearsay because it’s unreliable hearsay.

Here’s a question – why should the word of TD’s who say Ireland was forced into the bank guarantee out-weigh the word of those who say otherwise?

You've avoided every other difficult question on this thread, so I'm pretty sure you'll avoid that one too.

Head The Wall

Are you willing to accept the fact that politicians lie? If you do then your so called evidence is not credible.

djpbarry

EDIT: Wrong poster.

K-9

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you willing to accept the fact that politicians lie? If you do then your so called evidence is not credible.

Yet you believe one Senator and one TD? You are just picking and choosing who to believe.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

How does one provide negative evidence?
I think you’ll find it’s being dismissed as unreliable hearsay because it’s unreliable hearsay.

Here’s a question – why should the word of TD’s who say Ireland was forced into the bank guarantee out-weigh the word of those who say otherwise?

You've avoided every other difficult question on this thread, so I'm pretty sure you'll avoid that one too.

I'm not looking for negative evidence. Show me some positive evidence, like cabinet minutes, records of who was there, times, who was consulted (if anyone) etc...

The answer to your second question is: because dan Boyle was a senior member of a coallition party at the time, so that carries more weight than the pub talk on here.

molloyjh

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you willing to accept the fact that politicians lie? If you do then your so called evidence is not credible.

** EDIT **
Jaysus those names are fierce similar....

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Yet you believe one Senator and one TD? You are just picking and choosing who to believe.

Can you point me to another source who says differently? Other than scoff of course

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

I think you'll find that "the word of politicians is unreliable" is precisely the point that has already been made to you several times.
My so-called evidence? Aren't you the one submitting the word of TD's as evidence?

Sorry - there is another poster on here called head the WALL - he's on your side though...this could get confusing :eek:

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

Do you enjoy creating a position for yourself to tear down? You said your evidence is based on the word of 2 politicians and are now saying that because politicians lie anything they said isn't credible evidence. We all already know that, yet you seem to agree with that point and disagree with it simultaneously. A politicians word is good enough evidence for you, but not for anyone else.

It'd be quite amusing if it didn't reflect the serious social issues we have re things like this, i.e. that people believe what they choose to utterly regardless of reason and fact and then stand by that position in the face of reason and fact. This isn't sport where you stand by your team through thick and thin.

Theres someone else here called head the wall. Should one of us change our name?

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Theres someone else here called head the wall. Should one of us change our name?

Edited my post just there as I realised....

Let's summarise briefly. Do you believe that the bank bailouts that occurred in 2008/09 were driven and in some ways "controlled" by the ECB?

Heads the ball

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you willing to accept the fact that politicians lie? If you do then your so called evidence is not credible.

I don't accept this proposition. Sure someone could take your theory and say "do people lie?"

Then no one could be taken at their word.

Nobodies evidence would be reliable.

If Boyle had said, the bank bailout was all our decision then no one here would be saying "don't mind dan Boyle we can't trust him" because that would support the majority opinion here

Heads the ball

molloyjh wrote: »

Edited my post just there as I realised....

Let's summarise briefly. Do you believe that the bank bailouts that occurred in 2008/09 were driven and in some ways "controlled" by the ECB?

Yes sir

molloyjh

Heads the ball wrote: »

Yes sir

Then maybe have a read of this (very quick google search so it's not directly related, but has the relevant info none-the-less). The bank bailouts was done completely off our own bat. What you are thinking of is the national bailout in 2010. And in that situation the ECB had every right to place restrictions on what we did with the money they were lending us, especially seeing as it directly impacted the Eurozone. We went to them because we had gotten in over our heads with the bank bailouts by not fully realising the scale of the issue.

http://www.independent.ie/business/european/european-central-bank-willing-to-force-senior-bondholders-to-take-losses-in-nonsystematic-banks-3169093.html

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

I'm not looking for negative evidence. Show me some positive evidence, like cabinet minutes, records of who was there, times, who was consulted (if anyone) etc...

You are looking for negative evidence. You’re seeking evidence that something did not happen. If there is no evidence to suggest that some event took place, then the reasonable conclusion is that said event did not happen.

Heads the ball wrote: »

The answer to your second question is: because dan Boyle was a senior member of a coallition party at the time, so that carries more weight than the pub talk on here.

Does it carry more weight than the other 167 TD’s? Do you believe everything TD’s say without question?

Heads the ball wrote: »

I don't accept this proposition. Sure someone could take your theory and say "do people lie?"

Then no one could be taken at their word.

Nobody should be taken at their word, especially politicians.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

I'm not looking for negative evidence. Show me some positive evidence, like cabinet minutes, records of who was there, times, who was consulted (if anyone) etc...

The answer to your second question is: because dan Boyle was a senior member of a coallition party at the time, so that carries more weight than the pub talk on here.

Well, it might, if Dan Boyle was claiming what you said he's claiming, which I'm not sure is actually the case. Coveney, as far as I can see, hasn't claimed that the ECB were behind the guarantee - but, also as far as I can see, Dan Boyle hasn't either.

If you take his interview on VB, for example, where he's being quizzed about the claims in the book, he's referring to the bailout in 2010 as having ECB pressure, not the guarantee: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/22/that-seemed-to-go-well/

It may also be worth pointing out that Boyle isn't terribly credible on facts (and I'm speaking as a long-term Green voter here) - in the interview linked, for example, he claims that the ECB was funding the Irish banks to the tune of €130bn on the night of the guarantee:

Boyle: “Even at that stage, on the night of the guarantee being made, the ECB was providing liquidity support to Irish banks to the tune of €130billion.”

Browne: “Not at that time.”

Boyle: “Yes it was.”

Browne: “No, not at that time.”

Boyle: “Yes it was, Vincent.”

Browne:I’m sorry, of the bank guarantee? Oh, absolutely not. That was true of the night, of the time of the EU/IMF deal. But not at the time of the bank guarantee.

Boyle: “Not at all.”

Browne: “Go on. It’s just not true. But go on anyway.”

As Browne says, that's just not true - the figure is roughly €40bn.

So....we seem to have an issue that you may not even have the evidence you think you have, because I think you might be confusing Boyle's reference to the 2010 bailout with the 2008 guarantee.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Head The Wall

Heads the ball wrote: »

Theres someone else here called head the wall. Should one of us change our name?

I'm around here a lot longer than you bucko

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

I'm not looking for negative evidence. Show me some positive evidence, like cabinet minutes, records of who was there, times, who was consulted (if anyone) etc...

You are looking for negative evidence. You’re seeking evidence that something did not happen. If there is no evidence to suggest that some event took place, then the reasonable conclusion is that said event did not happen.

Heads the ball wrote: »

The answer to your second question is: because dan Boyle was a senior member of a coallition party at the time, so that carries more weight than the pub talk on here.

Does it carry more weight than the other 167 TD’s? Do you believe everything TD’s say without question?

Heads the ball wrote: »

I don't accept this proposition. Sure someone could take your theory and say "do people lie?"

Then no one could be taken at their word.

Nobody should be taken at their word, especially politicians.

I think if you just read ny last post the evidence i am seeking us minutes etc so we can determine exactly WHO made the decision. But of course if you are so insistent on just driving your point home without any other consideration then you would have missed that

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

I think if you just read ny last post the evidence i am seeking us minutes etc so we can determine exactly WHO made the decision. But of course if you are so insistent on just driving your point home without any other consideration then you would have missed that

I think we're now at the stage where an absence of evidence is all you have for evidence:

During Leaders’ Questions, Kenny took issue with questions from Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin on banking debt by returning to the issue of the bank guarantee introduced by the Fianna Fáil-led government on 30 September 2008.

He said: “In respect of the bank guarantee – which you completed at 4am in the morning – nobody knows what you said. There is no file in Department of Taoiseach on this.

“It’s either shredded or disposed of, dispatched of. In other words, the government has no evidence of discussions that took place, of what you said,” he added, referring to Martin who was then Minister for Foreign Affairs.

http://www.thejournal.ie/shredded-bank-guarantee-enda-kenny-fianna-fail-484682-Jun2012/

The rest of the documents - relating to the decision-making process, and excepting the Attorney-General's opinions - are here: http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/PAC/Reports/document1.htm

You can read them for yourself, as I have done - there's no reference to the ECB having any input into the decision. Indeed, there's virtually no mention of the ECB at all, except for them being consulted in respect of their legal opinion on various proposed options.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

I think it was funny when heads the wall posted here earlier and all the conservative lads went mental thinking I had contradicted myself

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you take his interview on VB, for example, where he's being quizzed about the claims in the book, he's referring to the bailout in 2010 as having ECB pressure, not the guarantee: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/22/that-seemed-to-go-well/

Yep, Heads the Ball has got his guarantees and bail outs mixed up.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you take his interview on VB, for example, where he's being quizzed about the claims in the book, he's referring to the bailout in 2010 as having ECB pressure, not the guarantee: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/06/22/that-seemed-to-go-well/

Yep, Heads the Ball has got his guarantees and bail outs mixed up.

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