Fg councillor receives death threats for speaking the truth!

One eyed Jack · 21-02-2023 10:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120272033#Comment_120272033

We DO have a political system that deals with unfairness, and fairness, it’s just that it doesn’t deal with it subjectively. That’s why an assessment of needs isn’t based upon anyone’s moral character, but rather an assessment of needs, based upon their circumstances. Your assessment within that framework of a person as lazy, just has no meaning.

The point you seem to be missing is that a lazy working person won’t fare much better in life than a person who is lazy and isn’t working. They’ll both be entitled to similar assistance and support from the State as anyone else if they’re in similar circumstances. All you’re doing is like them, looking at other people who appear to have more than you and determining that it must be because ‘the system’ is unfair, and you don’t think of yourself as lazy.

You also missed the point of my suggesting you don’t compare yourself to a crackhead career criminal who popped their clogs before their time and think that’s unfair, in the same way as they’re looking at you and thinking it’s unfair that you have something they don’t, whatever that might be. Unlike you, they don’t have any qualms about taking matters into their own hands to rectify what they see as unfair, rather than waiting on politicians to get the finger out, cos they know they’d be a while waiting for that to happen 🤨

Murph85 · 21-02-2023 11:28pm

The country needs a 2008 style crash and let the troika decide where the axe falls the next time!

Greyfox · 21-02-2023 11:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120272715#Comment_120272715

It has meaning, the lazy person may be more than capable of looking after themselves but they would rather be seen as a person needing assistance in order to get an extra 40 hours a week for leisure and the chance of a free home rather than working and getting much less handouts. Your crackhead example is just you trying very badly to claim that to very different things are similar. The crackhead has most likely caused the situation they are in themselves.

colm_mcm · 21-02-2023 11:48pm

Small thing, but wishing someone a slow and painful death isn’t a death threat.

21-02-2023 11:50pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120272269#Comment_120272269

And who makes the policy? The public servants and SPADS. Time to get real.

It's a bit like the idiots deciding that certain properties are not up to standard for refugees. As long as a place is warm, dry, has electricity , adequate space, toilet and washing facilities and a kitchen it should be fine. But no, someone decides that they need the same level of comfort they had at home. I digress, and it's not a refugee just highlighting the inability of policy makers to actually understand that people need a certain basic level of accommodation, ant 5 star accommodation.

21-02-2023 11:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120269300#Comment_120269300

Why should they have a say? Perhaps a first refusal, but then you accept the second offer or join the line again at the back.

21-02-2023 11:58pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120268770#Comment_120268770

Never said anything like that. I'm talking about social housing, not private renting.

One eyed Jack · 22-02-2023 12:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120273045#Comment_120273045

”Most likely?”, It’s an absolute certainty that the crackhead career criminal caused the situation they were in, in exactly the same manner as you caused the situation you’re in, but instead of choosing to improve your own circumstances, you want politicians to intercede on your behalf to cause someone else to be deprived of something because you feel they don’t deserve it.

One thing I will say about the crackhead career criminal is that they weren’t lazy, they were an incredibly highly motivated individual when they put what was left of their mind to it in the pursuit of more drugs.

My point was that according to your method of assessment, they deserved more than they had, whereas because life isn’t fair, and the political system is incapable of making it fair, it’s up to each person to make the best of a bad situation for themselves, and to come to terms with the fact that change requires greater effort than they’re willing to make. Politicians appear to have made peace already with that reality, except for one who lost her shìt at a council meeting and thought throwing a tantrum is how things get done.

That’s working out about as well as could be expected.

Greyfox · 22-02-2023 1:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120273197#Comment_120273197

And who do you think you are to try to claim I haven't tried to improve my circumstances? Do you like making things up just to suit your argument?

Its not about depriving people, its simply about giving too much financial assistance to some while leaving loads more people struggling.

You've got my method of assessment wrong, I never said they deserved more than they had. A woman spoke up at a council meeting and said something that was very true and important and I applaud the woman for doing brilliant work

One eyed Jack · 22-02-2023 2:49am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120273359#Comment_120273359

And who do you think you are to try to claim I haven't tried to improve my circumstances? Do you like making things up just to suit your argument?

Only one of us is making things up to suit their own argument, and it’s not me. I claimed that instead of choosing to improve your own circumstances, you want politicians to intercede on your behalf to cause someone else to be deprived of something because you feel they don’t deserve it. I know exactly who I am - I’m the person who’s reading your posts, where I see no evidence of any attempt to argue that politicians should be motivated to improve your circumstances, never mind what anyone else is getting.

You can word it however you like, the effect is still the same - you want people who are already at a disadvantage to you, to be deprived of financial assistance you feel they don’t deserve, because that’s what you imagine is fair. Now before you go off on one - having read your previous posts in this thread, I know you’re gainfully employed, that’s an immediate advantage you have over the people you’re claiming are receiving more financial assistance from the State than they deserve. You’re obviously well educated, again another significant advantage over the people you feel are receiving more financial assistance than they deserve. If you own property, well, the people who use the term ‘foreva home’ generally find out just how long ‘foreva’ actually is when they have a significantly shorter life expectancy than you do. I could go on, but by now you’ve probably got the idea - by every metric you have far more advantages than the people you think should be further disadvantaged, in order to achieve what in your mind would be fair.

It’s YOUR method of assessment that the criteria which you consider relevant are those where you already have the greatest advantage, well colour me shocked. It’s your criteria that suggests what people deserve should be based upon their employment status. It’s why I pointed out that a lazy employed person and a lazy unemployed person are likely to achieve similar status in life, because they’re lazy! It’s not based upon whether they’re employed or not. It’s why I pointed out that while you’re waiting around for politicians to make the changes you feel are necessary in Irish society, politicians who are part of the same system that you are, aren’t interested in changing a system in which they enjoy advantages that let’s be honest - you don’t. It’s you who is at a disadvantage compared to people who literally don’t have to do anything other than maintain the status quo. They have one job, and they do it really, really well, because it’s in their own interest to do so.

So before you go pulling the woman card, it was a politician who lost her shìt at a council meeting because the very thing she’s supposed to be doing, she hasn’t done, which caused the people who she was advocating for to be in the situation they’re in, where they’re at risk of homelessness, and there isn’t a home for them, let alone a foreva home. She didn’t say anything that was true, she said exactly what you needed to hear. It’s no wonder you applaud her for her brilliant work on that basis, because there’s no evidence of her actually doing anything to help families who are struggling, there’s only evidence of her continuing struggle against reality.

Murph85 · 22-02-2023 8:19am

"You can word it however you like, the effect is still the same - you want people who are already at a disadvantage to you, to be deprived of financial assistance you feel they don’t deserve, because that’s what you imagine is fair. "

That posters loving standards are fairly Substantially erodes, to pay for others cushy number. Compare Ireland with our peers, we are way out of line. Expecting the poor on 40k to fork out for this insanity is depraved. No wonder the entry point to the marginal rate here is so low, when the mental welfare and appalling value for money is criminal. You warn onto the hundreds or multiple hundreds of thousands in other countries before paying a lower max rate of tax. These countries also have proper infrastructure and military spend... so you can actually see where the tax goes...

Greyfox · 22-02-2023 1:11pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120273465#Comment_120273465

I'm not making things up. I'm happy for people on the dole to get assistance and I am in favour of basic social housing. I'm not happy when that assistance ultimately makes them better off than loads of working people when that money could instead be used to help other people in need

In Ireland you can choose a career on the dole and get lucky with a free house, it shouldnt be an attractive choice for a minority.

One eyed Jack · 22-02-2023 2:04pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120274707#Comment_120274707

Ahh here, if that’s not making stuff up to suit your argument… 🤨

The assistance anyone gets because they’re on the dole doesn’t make them better off than any amount of people who are working. Being on the dole is not a career choice, and there is no free house.

It would be an attractive choice regardless of whatever little amount they receive from the State and in some people’s eyes that would still be too generous because those people are still managing to live, whereas someone earning €42k and is in employment, at risk of their family becoming homeless, is because they can’t manage to live on their income.

That’s what drives the envy of other people who feel hard done by and they’re looking at other people who they think are getting everything for nothing. It’s a very skewed perception of reality. The facts are that most welfare payments are means tested and if a person is earning above those thresholds, they won’t qualify for assistance, no matter how much more money is available, and it is.

Every county council receives millions in funding from the State to provide for social housing, and can draw down millions more, so if there is no social housing available to accommodate a family who are working and are at risk of becoming homeless, that’s not the fault of “people who never worked a day in their life taking up housing”, that’s entirely the fault of a council who haven’t gotten the finger out in decades when they were as aware then as they are now that they needed to invest in providing for social housing.

They chose not to, and choosing to deflect from their own failures to try and suggest people who social housing was intended for are the reason why there is no housing available for people who need it, is circular reasoning which is an attractive argument if you don’t examine it too closely, because it appeals to people who imagine that people in social housing are being accommodated for free, and depriving who that person sees as more deserving, of being accommodated for free!

They’d be complaining about that person too, on the basis that they look to be doing better than someone else and so shouldn’t be getting as much assistance as they must be getting, but in reality such decisions aren’t based on an assessment of anyones moral character, they’re based on an assessment of needs, and the criteria are means tested.

Greyfox · 22-02-2023 3:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120274955#Comment_120274955

"The assistance anyone gets.. people who are working"

Low paid workers don't get a medical card and usually have to pay to commute to work and lunch and this puts them only a little better off than on the dole which is fine. It's when you add in getting a nice council house with low rent a person on the dole can end up better off. I'm just stating the fact that a small number of people would choose the dole option if they know it means getting a nice council house.

One eyed Jack · 22-02-2023 6:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120275436#Comment_120275436

Again in your examples though, you’re making up circumstances to suit your argument. People working in low income jobs can still qualify for all the same things as a person who is unemployed - financial assistance from the State, and they too can qualify for the same quality of council house as the person who is unemployed. They’re still financially, personally and socially better off long-term than the person who is unemployed. These are objective means tests, whereas the kind of test you wish to be applied is based upon your own selective perception of who’s more deserving of assistance.

I’ve no doubt the people you speak of exist, because I’ve met a few people who are like that, and they too think they’re “gaming the system” and all the rest of it. They’re not the sharpest tools in the box, frankly. They tell themselves a lot to convince themselves that they’re better off than people who are working, and some of them are so convinced they’re so much smarter than everyone else that they think they’re rubbing it in when they’re going on about how everyone else is stupid for working and they’re getting everything for nothing.

I have a brother who’s exactly as described above, he gives me an earache. It’s fortunate that we’re not in contact and we don’t see each other at all any more since my mother decided she wasn’t doing Christmas get-togethers any more because we couldn’t behave ourselves (I’ve four brothers, can’t be in the same room for longer than 10 minutes before a fight breaks out and we end up knocking seven bells out of each other). It means I don’t have to put up with his shìt. So do I know the kind of person you’re referring to? You bet I do, and not for a minute am I in any way envious of him, nor do I think he’s better off than anyone else or any of the rest of it. He lives, as I mentioned earlier, in perpetual misery, and has to tell himself lies every day to convince himself that he’s better than everyone else. That’s why people who are working, even people who are on low incomes, are better off long-term, it’s why the vast majority of people wouldn’t choose that lifestyle in the first place - because it just isn’t the least bit attractive, for a multitude of reasons.

Loafing Oaf · 03-05-2023 6:36pm

Councillor Moran is leaving FG

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fine-gael-politician-quits-party-were-not-looking-after-the-people-were-supposed-to-be-looking-after/a79383868.html

or rather, "she isn't leaving FG, FG has left her."

“My memory is of the Garret FitzGerald Fine Gael. The leadership under Leo has lost touch with the ordinary people, I feel — although the party is still full of brilliant politicians and workers who are trying very hard.

“But they need to listen to the people — and they don’t.”

She added: “I was whipped not to ask questions about public spending by the Laois party group.”

I'm a bit baffled by her position. Has FG in her political lifetime ever been the kind of 'fiscally responsible' party she clearly thinks it should be? Was it more so under Garret than it is now?