Sean O'Rourke Today Show

foxtrot101

No response from Peter as per usual. How about having a bit of courage in your convictions, it is a discussion forum after all.

PeterTheNinth

foxtrot101 wrote: »

No response from Peter as per usual. How about having a bit of courage in your convictions, it is a discussion forum after all.

Sorry the job got in the way.. the main contributor who was in the studio was a Democrat who hates Trump. If you were analysing the performance of Enda Kenny, would you bring Michael Martin in to the studio to give his analysis?

And Donnolly really needs to focus on how bad their own candidate was, that people would vote for Trump. I think he's still in denial.

foxtrot101

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Sorry the job got in the way.. the main contributor who was in the studio was a Democrat who hates Trump. If you were analysing the performance of Enda Kenny, would you bring Michael Martin in to the studio to give his analysis?

And Donnolly really needs to focus on how bad their own candidate was, that people would vote for Trump. I think he's still in denial.

The election was a long time ago. It's not about Hilary anymore - it's all about Trump. From what I remember Donnelly was one of few pundits who actually gave Trump a chance of winning the election and reasons he gave for that were pretty spot on. Plus, as serfboard pointed out there was two Democrats and two Republicans on the panel.

What's your analyses of Trump's first 100 days - want has he achieved?

southstar

PeterTheNinth wrote: »

Sorry the job got in the way.. the main contributor who was in the studio was a Democrat who hates Trump. If you were analysing the performance of Enda Kenny, would you bring Michael Martin in to the studio to give his analysis?

And Donnolly really needs to focus on how bad their own candidate was, that people would vote for Trump. I think he's still in denial.

Given that the topic was about Trump presidency its hardly surprising that Larry Donnelly would focus on this. Sure he dislikes the man but I'd hardly call that embittered....and given that Hilary for all her faults did win the popular vote, quite comfortably I fact, its a bit of a stretch to sat that Donnelly is in denial for airing his opinions.
The Kenny /Martin analogy doesn't hold up at all...Kenny is lambasted,rightly or wrongly, on a daily basis from all sides particularly his main political opponents and the media are more than willing to facilitate this.Also this discussion was moderated by the presence of O'Rourke and other guests.

Right2Write

Liam Doran - gimme, gimme, gimme.

Harry Angstrom

Can they not see the major flaw with that student payback proposal? The highflyers will feck off to Canada, Australia etc and never pay a cent back while the people left here earning less will be screwed with having to make repayments into their 30s and 40s.

Right2Write

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Can they not see the major flaw with that student payback proposal? The highflyers will feck off to Canada, Australia etc and never pay a cent back while the people left here earning less will be screwed with having to make repayments into their 30s and 40s.

Apparently that's what often happens with Aussie students - get their loans, finish their studies and then emigrate leaving the bills behind.

Right2Write

Why is Ronan Mullen always trotting himself out to represent the Catholic agenda? Is there no one else? Are they in such a tiny minority?

Whatever, he always makes my blood boil. Talks over everyone else, rams his views regardless, arrogant and condescending to his fellow woman panelist this morning.

I find him to be a most objectionable individual. Who on earth votes for him?

zoobizoo

Right2Write wrote: »

Why is Ronan Mullen always trotting himself out to represent the Catholic agenda? Is there no one else? Are they in such a tiny minority?

Whatever, he always makes my blood boil. Talks over everyone else, rams his views regardless, arrogant and condescending to his fellow woman panelist this morning.

I find him to be a most objectionable individual. Who on earth votes for him?

It is good that he is on as he shows us that there are many who think like him.

He is cleverly changing the conversation about Repeal to one of "down syndrome babies will be aborted".....

I don't agree with what he says but his voice on the radio reminds me that there are a lot of conservative views out there .

IvyTheTerrible

I see RTE are advertising Trump hotel in Doolin - will they be able to maintain their "impartial" (ha) stance now that he's putting bread on the table?

Callan57

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

I see RTE are advertising Trump hotel in Doolin - will they be able to maintain their "impartial" (ha) stance now that he's putting bread on the table?

Advertising not working too well .... the hotel is in Doonbeg! :P

IvyTheTerrible

Callan57 wrote: »

Advertising not working too well .... the hotel is in Doonbeg! :P

Touché!

Right2Write

zoobizoo wrote: »

It is good that he is on as he shows us that there are many who think like him.

He is cleverly changing the conversation about Repeal to one of "down syndrome babies will be aborted".....

I don't agree with what he says but his voice on the radio reminds me that there are a lot of conservative views out there .

He did indeed keep changing the topic to abortion, his default seems to be that if he's losing any reasonable argument - then he defaults to abortion.

But give us someone else please. If Ronan is all there is, it's just a flimsy facade.

IvyTheTerrible

Right2Write wrote: »

He did indeed keep changing the topic to abortion, his default seems to be that if he's losing any reasonable argument - then he defaults to abortion.

But give us someone else please. If Ronan is all there is, it's just a flimsy facade.

Oh there is the Quinn fella as well isn't there? Another fine debater.

etselbbuns

I am fantastic so I am and humble and love my salary
'It's a fraction of what my predecessor was paid' - Sean O'Rourke on €290,000 salary

Right2Write

Was Mary Lou talking on her phone in the background there whilst conducting a public interview?? There were funny noises in the background and when SOR came back to her, she was caught temporarily on the hop. Hope it was important as it came across as downright rude.

zoobizoo

Did she have her posh voice or her slightly skanger voice on today? It seems to change depending on the show / topic.

Right2Write

zoobizoo wrote: »

Did she have her posh voice or her slightly skanger voice on today? It seems to change depending on the show / topic.

Her disinterested voice, if I recall correctly, as in I've better things to be doing.

ThisRegard

That Bernadette lady is getting pretty hysterical over social welfare and won't let anyone else get a word in.

Right2Write

ThisRegard wrote: »

That Bernadette lady is getting pretty hysterical over social welfare and won't let anyone else get a word in.

Very shouty woman.

Call me Al

Who is Bernadette?

ThisRegard

Call me Al wrote: »

Who is Bernadette?

Used to work in the department somewhere, but she's extremely, extremely irritating. Class warfare, shouldn't be looked at too much because of austerity we went through, she's a header.

I expect her to start courting some of the left political parties at some point.

HeidiHeidi

Call me Al wrote: »

Who is Bernadette?

I don't know, but I'm absolutely exhausted trying to listen and keep up with her!

She also comes across as possibly fairly naive about the whole area of SW fraud.

Call me Al

She talks a mile a minute!
Bernadette Gorman. And I'm still none the wiser as to who she is.

Right2Write

ThisRegard wrote: »

Used to work in the department somewhere

She wasn't spending her money, just some slush fund from the taxpayer that funded her wages, pension and the needs of her clients.

Social welfare fraud is just as bad as business fraud and tax defaulting. No reason at all why it shouldn't be highlighted.

Brendan Bendar

Right2Write wrote: »

She wasn't spending her money, just some slush fund from the taxpayer that funded her wages, pension and the needs of her clients.

Social welfare fraud is just as bad as business fraud and tax defaulting. No reason at all why it shouldn't be highlighted.

Cannot understand that there are so many 'cheerleaders' for people defrauding the taxpayer( you and me).

This country is gone to the dogs in my opinion, yeah huh sure it's ok to defraud the taxpayer, sure it's only me that's at it !!!!!

And of course the usual posh student type standing up for the cheats.

Guess who will be the first to demand more houses, nurses, Gardaì , public services though, paid for by the taxpayer................yeah you guessed it:mad:

neris

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Cannot understand that there are so many 'cheerleaders' for people defrauding the taxpayer( you and me).

This country is gone to the dogs in my opinion, yeah huh sure it's ok to defraud the taxpayer, sure it's only me that's at it !!!!!

And of course the usual posh student type standing up for the cheats.

Guess who will be the first to demand more houses, nurses, Gardaì , public services though, paid for by the taxpayer................yeah you guessed it:mad:

im fed up with it, i pay enough taxes to the govt for feck al.. people giving out about the initiative to report fraud baffles me but at the same time the amount of people claiming some sort of social in this country is unreal so not surprising they get upset that they might be ratted out

Harry Angstrom

Bernadette made plenty of salient points, albeit in a slightly forceful way. Fine Gael man was throwing unsubstantiated figures around to suit Leo's agenda.

Harry Angstrom

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

I don't know, but I'm absolutely exhausted trying to listen and keep up with her!

She also comes across as possibly fairly naive about the whole area of SW fraud.

She was employed as a social welfare inspector. How could she come across as "naive", considering she's worked at the coalface?

Brendan Bendar

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

She was employed as a social welfare inspector. How could she come across as "naive", considering she's worked at the coalface?

She certainly came across to me as someone with a sizeable 'chip' on her shoulder, and quite naive.

ThisRegard

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Fine Gael man was throwing unsubstantiated figures around to suit Leo's agenda.

I think Labour were the ones to start heavily cracking down on welfare fraud.

Harry Angstrom

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think Labour were the ones to start heavily cracking down on welfare fraud.

Cracking down on social welfare fraud or demonising those in receipt of social welfare? There's a very fine line between the two.

Harry Angstrom

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

She certainly came across to me as someone with a sizeable 'chip' on her shoulder, and quite naive.

So, how much experience does the Brenner have with the inner workings of the Dept of Social Protection, or are you just another FG-supporting hurler on the ditch?

Right2Write

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Cracking down on social welfare fraud or demonising those in receipt of social welfare? There's a very fine line between the two.

How do you crack down on social welfare fraud without demonising some who are in receipt? One implies the other.

Details of people who illegally evade tax are published each year. What's good enough for these people is good enough for social welfare fraudsters.

I'm happy to collect and pay tax to assist others who can't work. But have no interest in funding the lifestyles of people screwing the system. And yes, I believe there is abuse of the social welfare system.

ThisRegard

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So, how much experience does the Brenner have with the inner workings of the Dept of Social Protection, or are you just another FG-supporting hurler on the ditch?

It's getting as bad as every other political forum now, criticise or defend something and you get the lazy generalisation of oh, you're saying this so therefore it's implies that you're a member of A/B/C.....

FWIW, a colleague was until recently an inspector with the DSFA and he and Bernadette seem like they worked in two completely different places.

RayM

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

She certainly came across to me as someone with a sizeable 'chip' on her shoulder, and quite naive.

She came across to me as someone who - unlike the FG spoofer - was dealing in actual hard facts and had a huge amount of experience on the topic in question (thirty years, if I heard correctly).

Harry Angstrom

Right2Write wrote: »

How do you crack down on social welfare fraud without demonising some who are in receipt? One implies the other.

Details of people who illegally evade tax are published each year. What's good enough for these people is good enough for social welfare fraudsters.

I'm happy to collect and pay tax to assist others who can't work. But have no interest in funding the lifestyles of people screwing the system. And yes, I believe there is abuse of the social welfare system.

Local newspapers often carry court reports of people convicted of welfare fraud - it's nothing new, although Leo would like us to think he's come up with this idea all by himself.

What's funny (or tragic) about a lot of the people on this thread who give out about social welfare is that they seem to assume there won't ever be a day when they might have to rely on a welfare payment. They only see it as a "drain" on their taxes and nothing else. They'd probably be happier to see a reversion to the poverty-stricken Victorian era. They seem to forget that their job could be gone in the morning or serious illness could disable them in the blink of an eye, or they might find themselves having to care for a loved one.
The vast majority of those on DSP payments are genuine, although you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you watch Leo's ads on TV. It's nothing more than a demonisation of those on low incomes and a deflection from those friends of Fine Gael who have pillaged the State of millions and millions. Have a look at the Moriarty Tribunal Report. It might open people's minds as to the real gangsters in this country.

Brendan Bendar

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So, how much experience does the Brenner have with the inner workings of the Dept of Social Protection, or are you just another FG-supporting hurler on the ditch?

Normally I ignore people who start discussions with 'so' and personalise discourse.
Bit surprised Harry, that you would come up with that stuff, but be that as it may, as a taxpayer I support any action which directs my taxes towards people who really need help and and weeds out the gloamers ,and there are many, who tip around the edges doing 'this and that' and screwing those who really need the help.

That's about it Harry, I'm just an ordinary guy who likes to see my taxes go to the real needy, not to supplement the big 70 incher on the wall and the trips to Spain and Turkey every few months.

Whatever party has that policy will have my support, it's that simple .

Lady Chatterton

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be supporting anyone who chooses to rip of the system by working and claiming benefits but I believe it's morally wrong to tar all social welfare recipients with the one brush.

Through my work I regularly encounter people who are in severe financial difficulties (mostly through no fault of their own - redundancy or illness). As Harry mentioned your personal circumstances can change over night, I've worked with people with decent jobs (nurses, teachers etc.) who were forced to leave work to care for a partner with MS, a parent with Dementia or a child with special needs. These people actually work for their benefits, they're not spongers. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge others?

A thing that always amuses me is the number of people who rave on about being good taxpaying citizens but they're very quick to ask their plumbers, electricians, painters, gardeners, mechanics, cleaners, childminders etc. if they will do the job for CASH. It's a bit of a double standard, don't you think?

foxtrot101

A handy bit of electioneering in the Fine Gael leadership race, particularly when you can get someone else to pay for it...someone like the Department of Social Protection.



"Fraud is wrong" - Oh really, I never would of guessed.:rolleyes:

Brendan Bendar

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be supporting anyone who chooses to rip of the system by working and claiming benefits but I believe it's morally wrong to tar all social welfare recipients with the one brush.

Through my work I regularly encounter people who are in severe financial difficulties (mostly through no fault of their own - redundancy or illness). As Harry mentioned your personal circumstances can change over night, I've worked with people with decent jobs (nurses, teachers etc.) who were forced to leave work to care for a partner with MS, a parent with Dementia or a child with special needs. These people actually work for their benefits, they're not spongers. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge others?

A thing that always amuses me is the number of people who rave on about being good taxpaying citizens but they're very quick to ask their plumbers, electricians, painters, gardeners, mechanics, cleaners, childminders etc. if they will do the job for CASH. It's a bit of a double standard, don't you think?

Nobody here, that I have seen anyway tries to tar every social welfare recipient with the same brush,I certainly wouldn't and would oppose anyone who tries to do that.

Of course there should be no social welfare abuse in the great scheme of things, but we all know there is.

The Govt. working for the taxpayer has every right to try to minimise abuse, there's the bottom line.

This 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' argument hold no water at all as support for that line implies support for insidious abuse of taxpayers money and really only penalises those who genuinely need help.

This business of 'career welfare employees' cradle to grave needs stamping out.

In fact the level of State subsidy for our population is frankly alarming.

Brid smith and her fellow travellers would, in my opinion anyway, be better employed , focussing on this aspect of our society rather than trying to ride the hard working taxpayer ragged ,climbing up on their back and p*****g down their necks.

Lady Chatterton

We need to tackle all forms of fraud or questionable accounting practices - like business people who play with their business accounts so their children can get college grants. My Dad was an ordinary PAYE worker and I never received a grant but there were plenty of wealthy business owners and large farmers whose children did, how is that done? Some creative accounting?

We're blessed in Clare to have a hardworking TD who according to his expenses worked every day of the year, including Christmas and Easter. https://www.fairsociety.ie/ladies-and-gentlemen-will-you-please-give-a-big-round-of-applause-for-fg-td-joe-carey/ However, I'm sure there are many politicians who have questionable/excessive travel and other expenses. Maybe Leo and his colleagues would like to take a look at this, I'm sure there is some fat to cut right there.

What about councillors and TDs who travel together to meetings, conferences, sign in for an hour or two and all claim travel expenses separately? There are lots of people ripping us off folks and some of them wear expensive suits.

Brendan Bendar

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

We need to tackle all forms of fraud or questionable accounting practices - like business people who play with their business accounts so their children can get college grants. My Dad was an ordinary PAYE worker and I never received a grant but there were plenty of wealthy business owners and larger farmers whose children did, how is that done? Some creative accounting?

We're blessed in Clare to have a hardworking TD who according to his expenses worked every day of the year, including Christmas and Easter. https://www.fairsociety.ie/ladies-and-gentlemen-will-you-please-give-a-big-round-of-applause-for-fg-td-joe-carey/ However, I'm sure there are many politicians who have questionable/excessive travel and other expenses. Maybe Leo and his colleagues would like to take a look at this, I'm sure there is some fat to cut right there.

With all due respect, the subject for discussion on the SOR Show was the tackling of SW fraud.This is what I responded to on this thread and my responses are , I hope, fairly clear cut.

Welfare fraud/abuse needs to be stamped out and as a taxpayer I expect the Govt. to tackle that problem.

I fully support the campaign to crack down on the issue as it aims to divert the funds to those who really need it.

Trying to politicise the campaign and indulge in 'whataboutery' arguments for me is disappointing and just serves to muddy the waters to the advantage of welfare cheats.

I genuinely cannot see why people are so opposed to this initiative.

Lady Chatterton

Brendan, I've already said I'm not opposed to cracking down on fraud but Leo's campaign just stigmatises everyone in receipt of benefits. On the other hand we're happy to turn a blind eye or accept other dodgy practices (like paying tradespersons cash) that also costs us taxpayers..... it's a double standard.

I think it's very unlikely we'll see Leo holding a poster encouraging us to report trades persons working in the black economy. This campaign is just a stunt to get Leo trending ahead of the leadership contest.

ThisRegard

ThisRegard wrote: »

Used to work in the department somewhere, but she's extremely, extremely irritating. Class warfare, shouldn't be looked at too much because of austerity we went through, she's a header.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

This 'using a sledgehammer to crack a nut' argument hold no water at all as support for that line implies support for insidious abuse of taxpayers money and really only penalises those who genuinely need help.

You've both completely missed the point that Bernadette and others have been making.

Bernadette was a Social Welfare Inspector -- she believes in tackling fraud, like all of us do.

The question of tackling fraud is not a binary one. The question is one of proportionality, which Bernadette repeatedly used: how big is the problem, and is the cost of the 'solution' justifiable?

The overwhelming majority of welfare claimants are paid the correct payment. Of those who are not paid the correct amount, 80% of these are due to administrative errors by Varadkar's department.

So does 20% of a very small minority justify this allocation of resources and an expensive advertising campaign? Especially given the possible stigma it may attach to welfare claimants as some kind of scumbags?

Or, is it just a populist campaign by some chancer, who wants to get his mug in the papers and appeal to traditional FG voters, using public money? This is a publicity campaign, we all agree on that, but if anyone thinks it's not relevant to Varadkar's personal publicity, I think that's incredibly naive.

Brendan Bendar

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

Brendan, I've already said I'm not opposed to cracking down on genuine fraud but Leo's campaign just stigmatises everyone in receipt of benefits. On the other hand we're happy to turn a blind eye or accept other dodgy practices (like paying tradespersons cash) that also cost us taxpayers..... it's a double standard.

No it doesn't LC it doesn't stigmatise anyone other than welfare cheats.

Other dodgy practices like paying tradesmen cash of course is a big issue, but not in the context of today's SOR show, which is what we are discussing.

That's for another thread, not relevant to this discussion.

foxtrot101

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

With all due respect, the subject for discussion on the SOR Show was the tackling of SW fraud.This is what I responded to on this thread and my responses are , I hope, fairly clear cut.

Welfare fraud/abuse needs to be stamped out and as a taxpayer I expect the Govt. to tackle that problem.

I fully support the campaign to crack down on the issue as it aims to divert the funds to those who really need it.

Trying to politicise the campaign and indulge in 'whataboutery' arguments for me is disappointing and just serves to muddy the waters to the advantage of welfare cheats.

I genuinely cannot see why people are so opposed to this initiative.

It's not even Leo's initiative, it was his predecessors. He claims that last year some 20,800 allegations of alleged social welfare fraud were dealt with by the Department, which is true. However, what he neglected to mentions is "only a minority of these reports tend to result in welfare payments being stopped or reduced. The majority of reports do not contain sufficient information or contain incorrect allegations". So it's not particularly effective.

This smacks of a politician wanting to get his picture in the paper at an opportune time.

Brendan Bendar

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You've both completely missed the point that Bernadette and others have been making.

Bernadette was a Social Welfare Inspector -- she believes in tackling fraud, like all of us do.

The question of tackling fraud is not a binary one. The question is one of proportionality, which Bernadette repeatedly used: how big is the problem, and is the cost of the 'solution' justifiable?

The overwhelming majority of welfare claimants are paid the correct payment. Of those who are not paid the correct amount, 80% of these are due to administrative errors by Varadkar's department.

So does 20% of a very small minority justify this allocation of resources and an expensive advertising campaign? Especially given the possible stigma it may attach to welfare claimants as some kind of scumbags?

Or, is it just a populist campaign by some chancer, who wants to get his mug in the papers and appeal to traditional FG voters, using public money? This is a publicity campaign, we all agree on that, but if anyone thinks it's not relevant to Varadkar's personal publicity, I think that's incredibly naive.

Well I certainly haven't " missed the point" Bernadette was making.

And I haven't missed the point that others were making here.

And my point is.

Varadkhar is doing his job on behalf of the taxpayer, that's what I expect him to do and what he's paid to do.

I don't,like Bernadette seems to imply, go along with turning a blind eye to welfare abuse, lone parent abuse, disability abuse,because it's alledgedly small.Alledgedly.

Other issues can be discussed on another thread but to try to politicise the saving of taxpayers money kind of for me shows how widespread this kind of abuse is.

Seems to be disturbing a lot of slates.

ThisRegard

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

What's funny (or tragic) about a lot of the people on this thread who give out about social welfare is that they seem to assume there won't ever be a day when they might have to rely on a welfare payment.

It's neither funny nor tragic, because it's untrue. The issue people have is with welfare fraud and the problem some people seem to have with the crackdown on it.

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

AThese people actually work for their benefits, they're not spongers. Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge others?

And this never happened either. You have a complete misunderstanding of what the piece was about and people's reaction to it.

ThisRegard

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You've both completely missed the point that Bernadette and others have been making. .......

in the papers and appeal to traditional FG voters, using public money? This is a publicity campaign, we all agree on that, but if anyone thinks it's not relevant to Varadkar's personal publicity, I think that's incredibly naive.

I haven't, this is no hammer to crack a nut. And as I already pointed out, most of this started under a previous government anyway.