Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why I won't be voting Sinn Fein

Options
12357…10

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    If you are no fool why are you considering voting for a party who have no plans to cut SW? Unless you hope they are lying, in which case voting for a party on the basis they lie about there promises seems a bit strange.
    They truly do believe they can do it without touching SW, but they most likely will have to. If they get in they will see it is not as easy as it looks BUT will still think of those at the bottom, and that is far different from FF and FG and in recent years Labour!


  • Options
    #123
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Leaving aside their historical legacy and their unrealistic policies there is a third problem with Sinn Féin. The present chaos is partly caused by people like Brian Cowan being focussed on the good of the party to the exclusion of the country, not because he was evil but because he had un unrealistic association of success of FF with the good of the country. SF are also something of a cult, with an excessive focus on their own party and perspective.


  • Options
    #124
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    ardmacha wrote: »
    SF are also something of a cult, with an excessive focus on their own party and perspective.
    Do you mean they should try to be more like FG, Labour and GP, you know focus on FF and try to emulate them as much as possible?
    As to the funding gap, all FF and their little helpers are doing is deferring payment at even greater cost. We may as well default now on 20 billion as default in 4 years time on 20 billion + 80 billion thieving bank bailouts.


  • Options
    #125
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    Of course it's not in the country's interest to get an IMF/EU loan, but nobody wants to lend Ireland money at a reasonable interest rate and the people in this country don't like cuts, which will seem very tame so far compared to what we will get if we don't take some sort of loan, as has being said already.

    Where are you getting your €100 billion figure by the way?





    Dan
    http://nationaldebtclocks.com/ireland.htm

    Not following you here, at all.


  • Options
    #126
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    We may as well default now on 20 billion as default in 4 years time on 20 billion + 80 billion thieving bank bailouts.
    +1

    Banks have had their chance to settle these debts in the last two years. They've made no attempt to do so. They seem determined that the citizens of this country should provide a bottomless pit of cash. That can't happen. We can't afford to pay these private debts anyway. We'd need full employment in a booming economy and then some.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do you mean they should try to be more like FG, Labour and GP, you know focus on FF and try to emulate them as much as possible?
    As to the funding gap, all FF and their little helpers are doing is deferring payment at even greater cost. We may as well default now on 20 billion as default in 4 years time on 20 billion + 80 billion thieving bank bailouts.


    So when we default how do we pay the Garda's, nurses doctors, social welfare etc etc? In IOU's written on post-it's?


  • Options
    #128
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    So when we default how do we pay the Garda's, nurses doctors, social welfare etc etc? In IOU's written on post-it's?
    This might be obvious, but it's probably better to work out something when we're 20 billion in debt rather than 80 billion in debt. We were borrowing pretty OK to cover day to day spending until NAMA and covering private banking speculators send the national debt skyward. We never had any problems servicing debts before the bailouts, so I don't see why bond holders would have issues dealing with Ireland again.

    EDIT: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1020/banks.html
    You can imagine now how much NAMA has cost. These things always seem to be way higher than the estimates. Every penny spent by NAMA (well whatever can be found at this stage) should be seized and all NAMA assets returned to their rightful owners.

    EDIT2: Looking at the numbers, it's an amazing co-incidence that the "shortfall" we're going to the IMF/ECB to cover almost exactly matches the amount per year we're spending on hoovering up failed property speculations. If it smells like a rat it probably is.


  • Options
    #129
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    We're already using the national pension fund as a deposit on the IMF loan. Why shouldn't we use it as stimulus in our own economy? Do you think we should be broke forever?


  • Options
    #130
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    This might be obvious, but it's probably better to work out something when we're 20 billion in debt rather than 80 billion in debt. We were borrowing pretty OK to cover day to day spending until NAMA and covering private banking speculators send the national debt skyward. We never had any problems servicing debts before the bailouts, so I don't see why bond holders would have issues dealing with Ireland again.

    EDIT: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1020/banks.html
    You can imagine now how much NAMA has cost. These things always seem to be way higher than the estimates. Every penny spent by NAMA (well whatever can be found at this stage) should be seized and all NAMA assets returned to their rightful owners.

    EDIT2: Looking at the numbers, it's an amazing co-incidence that the "shortfall" we're going to the IMF/ECB to cover almost exactly matches the amount per year we're spending on hoovering up failed property speculations. If it smells like a rat it probably is.


    We never had problems servicing debts because we weren't in such a big mess. If we pull out of the IMF/ECB deal who will lend us money? It's not exactly an attractive propostion, lend to the guys who've already gotten a loan and then bailed out on it only a few months into it.


  • Options
    #131
    BLIZZARD7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    squod wrote: »
    http://nationaldebtclocks.com/ireland.htm

    Not following you here, at all.

    That's our national debt, you said that I was suggesting "to give ~€100 billion to gamblers and criminals" so I'm not following you, the banks needed to be bailed out, the ECB wouldn't let them collapse, if it had they would have been seen as weak.





    Dan


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Dr. Baltar wrote: »
    I like the way Sinn Féin has moved on from their past. People applaud Bertie Ahearne for the Peace Process and seem to forget Adams and McGuinness' role in the good Friday agreement.

    Maybe it's because some of us realise and haven't forgotten that adams and mcguinness contributed to the need for a peace process and Good Friday Agreement in first place. :rolleyes:
    Dr. Baltar wrote: »
    To be fair, are economic policies really going to matter that much at the moment with the IMF looking after our Finances?

    Yes they do because like it or lump it we are meant to be looking after ourselves. Yes we have to do it within parameters set by IMF and ECB, but it is rather like your bank telling you you have to pay the mortgage but how you do is up to you.
    Dr. Baltar wrote: »
    Complete Tripe! To be fair to Sinn Féin they're always looking out for the underdog. They do great work in the poorer, urban areas of the country.
    In my own constituency they were the only party to go to travellers and help sort out a feud.

    I can see how that worked out alright. They do have the wherewithal to deal with travellers.
    Oh they work in poor areas, because these are the areas where they can get support for their communists rethoric and for the BS about taxing the rich and never cutting the social welfare for all the poor downtroden ones.
    Dr. Baltar wrote: »
    They're also the party that agreed to the Good Friday Agreement.

    So did a few other parties, parties that hadn't been the political wing of a terrorist organisation that hadn't a problem killing women and kids.
    Dr. Baltar wrote: »
    ...
    Also, I'm not socialist at all. I cry out for a lack of the Progressive Democrats.

    Oh FFS you would ideally like the PDs, but will make do with the Shinners.
    Are you sure you haven't a split personality ?
    Voltwad wrote: »
    I'm not hung up on their past too much anymore. I'm more so hung up on how they supported the bailout and their implementations up North.

    Yeah lets forget their past, especially the recent stuff post ceasefires in Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:
    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    So when we default how do we pay the Garda's, nurses doctors, social welfare etc etc? In IOU's written on post-it's?

    Scrup the Garda from that list.
    Shinners couldn't care less if the Gardaí drop dead, so can't see them bothered about paying them.


  • Options
    #133
    BLIZZARD7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    wolfpawnat wrote: »

    I am no fool, SW would have to be cut, but not as badly if the wealthy (who FF and FG are adamant on protecting) would have to pay their share! I think a lot of people would take their cuts knowing we all took them rather just us lowly urchins here at the bottom! I would not feel so bad about going without a new pair of jeans for myself because the ones I have are getting too tattered if I knew that those on top were cut too!

    They are not protecting the wealthy, define wealthy? People in the top tax bracket are paying more tax then those lower wages, I don't see the problem?





    Dan


  • Options
    #134
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    That's our national debt, you said that I was suggesting "to give ~€100 billion to gamblers and criminals" so I'm not following you, the banks needed to be bailed out, the ECB wouldn't let them collapse, if it had they would have been seen as weak.
    In that case the ECB should've written the cheque to AIB. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish government or taxpayer.


  • Options
    #135
    RachaelVO
    Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭RachaelVO


    Whether most of us like SF or not, there is a HUGE chance they are going to be the king makers after the election, and I defy either LAB or FG to say they wouldn't get into bed with them.

    SF getting a few just might act as the political "moral compass" (if there is such a thing) that's needed in Irish politics right now!


  • Options
    #136
    BLIZZARD7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    In that case the ECB should've written the cheque to AIB. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish government or taxpayer.

    Why should the ECB fork out for our mistakes ? Its the
    Taxpayer who took out immense loans that they could never repay! Yes they should have being regulated but people shouldn't have borrowed money that was impossible to repay.





    Dan


  • Options
    #137
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's our national debt, you said that I was suggesting "to give ~€100 billion to gamblers and criminals" so I'm not following you, the banks needed to be bailed out, the ECB wouldn't let them collapse, if it had they would have been seen as weak.
    In that case the ECB should've written the cheque to AIB. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish government or taxpayer.

    Except that it has everything to do with our government, because they made the decision to guarantee all the banks all by themselves. The EU was only told once the decision had been made, to check that it didn't run afoul of any European treaty commitments. Unluckily for us, it didn't.

    regards,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #138
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    That's our national debt, you said that I was suggesting "to give ~€100 billion to gamblers and criminals" so I'm not following you, the banks needed to be bailed out, the ECB wouldn't let them collapse, if it had they would have been seen as weak.

    No, the banks needed the guarantees as a temporary measure while they sorted their debts out. As I've said they chose not to do that.
    Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

    If your plan is to take on an unmanageable debt and use the money to bail the banksters out, I have news for you. We can't afford it. As I said previously, the markets will not reward you for bailing out criminals and gamblers when the country is in such a crisis.


  • Options
    #139
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    Why should the ECB fork out for our mistakes ? Its the
    Taxpayer who took out immense loans that they could never repay! Yes they should have being regulated but people shouldn't have borrowed money that was impossible to repay.





    Dan

    Where are you getting this? Seriously!


  • Options
    #140
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    No, the banks needed the guarantees as a temporary measure while they sorted their debts out. As I've said they chose not to do that.

    Barring BOI, which has, to be fair, done its best to raise its own money, the others do seem to have slipped gratefully enough into the taxpayers' pockets.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #141
    BLIZZARD7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    squod wrote: »
    Where are you getting this? Seriously!

    I know someone who works a financial institution, they have told me numerous times that the majority of their debt is from people and business's not repaying their mortgages. This means the banks have no money to repay their own loans and so they need a bailout because customers aren't paying their mortgages. They are also not able to borrow money internationally because irelands rating is so bad. Understand?





    Dan


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    LeixlipRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,081 ✭✭✭LeixlipRed


    Ah so it's the taxpayers fault? I knew it! Even when it was the bears I knew it.


  • Options
    #143
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    I know someone who works a financial institution, they have told me numerous times that the majority of their debt is from people and business's not repaying their mortgages. This means the banks have no money to repay their own loans and so they need a bailout because customers aren't paying their mortgages. They are also not able to borrow money internationally because irelands rating is so bad. Understand?
    That's like the old "then we must invade Iraq!" sketch. Lots of private individuals cannot repay loans to a private financial institution... therefore the public purse should bail them out.
    Er...


  • Options
    #144
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    I know someone who works a financial institution, they have told me numerous times that the majority of their debt is from people and business's not repaying their mortgages. This means the banks have no money to repay their own loans and so they need a bailout because customers aren't paying their mortgages. They are also not able to borrow money internationally because irelands rating is so bad. Understand?





    Dan

    No. Do some basic research here. Do you imagine there is €124billion in mortgage default? Lookat anyways the tide is turning on this attempted fraud. Pressure is coming from outside of the governments golden circle and it looks more and more likely that the creditors will be made pay their' own way. Fingers crossed.


  • Options
    #145
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    maccored wrote: »
    so basically, you dont agree with the eu/imf 'bailout' either, but you think someone else will do it better that SF intend to do. Very interesting. Very, very, very interesting when you consider the shinners have at least nailed their flag to the wall on this, unlike Labour and FG who have weakly waffled about it without actually giving away too much detail.

    Personally, i prefer the people who speak out loud about what they would like to do, rather than those (lab and fg in this instance) who say what people kinda want to hear, yet we have no idea if they have the balls to do it.
    You may personally prefer people who do that,but it's not good poker when you're going looking for funding off the bond markets.
    Plus I find it a mixture of funny and horrifying that you can slag off SF for doing pretty much what you want some other party to do.

    I also completely disagree with your analysis of how SFs plans will work out. You cant make an omlette without breaking some eggs.
    Look as much as it pains me to say this,I think Sinn Féin are bang on the money,pardon the pun, when they advocate the banks going to hell and taking their debt with them.
    But it's not as clear cut as that,we need to be on terms with our lenders to be getting money from them.
    SF are clever enough to know that they won't be in government with even only 80% of the electorate voting for parties that won't do business with them so they can be even more populist with the gung ho lines than Mr Gilmore used be.
    Other than that I think Sinn Féin have had the economic morals of an alley cat up to now and will continue to have them playing to the more angry voter for a Dáil term or two.
    After that,they'll have morphed their economic policies into something more reasonable if they want to step beyond the opposition stage and into government.


  • Options
    #146
    BLIZZARD7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭BLIZZARD7


    squod wrote: »
    No. Do some basic research here. Do you imagine there is €124billion in mortgage default? Lookat anyways the tide is turning on this attempted fraud. Pressure is coming from outside of the governments golden circle and it looks more and more likely that the creditors will be made pay their' own way. Fingers crossed.

    No I don't but I know it's a huge problem, I understand what yer saying but there is huge mortgage debt and until that's solved the country won't return to proper growth.





    Dan


  • Options
    #147
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    No I don't but I know it's a huge problem, I understand what yer saying but there is huge mortgage debt and until that's solved the country won't return to proper growth.





    Dan

    Mortgage debt is remarkably low all things considered. Borrowing huge amounts of money to satisfy the criminal mates of politicians is actually going to accelerate the problem WYB.


  • Options
    #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The mortgage problem will surface when the ecb starts rising rates and that could happen as early as the end of the year.

    I think whoever is in power at the end of next month should look at the two big banks carefully,now that we own them and see if they can remain nationalised (with as much of their their bond debt jettisoned as possible) untill such time as their profits have paid for the remainder of the mess they've gotten us into.


  • Options
    #149
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    BLIZZARD7 wrote: »
    They are not protecting the wealthy, define wealthy? People in the top tax bracket are paying more tax then those lower wages, I don't see the problem?
    Dan

    Getting people with over 1 million in assets to contribute more. For having more you should give more. As I once heard "if you are not poor effort to take charity, you should give to charity" Consultants, Judges, Bankers, CEO's all make enough to give more!


  • Options
    #150
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I can live with that to a degree as long as it doesn't harm peoples incentive to progress and make good for themselves.
    Remember most people who earn more money do so because they have more skills and are using them.
    They should not be penalised just because they have those skills.
    Thats anti progressive and counter productive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I can live with that to a degree as long as it doesn't harm peoples incentive to progress and make good for themselves.
    Remember most people who earn more money do so because they have more skills and are using them.
    They should not be penalised just because they have those skills.
    Thats anti progressive and counter productive.

    Well that is why they are saying 1% any more than that any you are punishing some one for making something of themselves. 1% isn't too much!


Advertisement