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
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
Corrupt, incompetent, lazy and self-serving
-
27-10-2003 08:46PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Originally posted by Sparks
my last name isn't Smurfit, Dunne or O'Reilly. I'm not likely to amass their levels of wealth and influence.
you are a bit dismissive of yourself there Sparks.
I'm convinced most reasonably intelligent people have it within themselves to become wealthy and powerfull.
This very weekend I was speaking to someone who is only 21, has over 20 people working for him already and drives a 03 beemer.
This person has no college education but has a lot of get up and go, I wonder where he'll be in 30 years time
I can think of at least five or six more people here locally who have started their own business and are now in their fifties and are either very wealthy or actually millionaires.
None of them are involved in politics, but maybe they should be.
mm0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally posted by bonkey
So, despite saying that the politicians are irredeemably corrupt, that the the system is irredeemably broken, and that your complaints about it are based on spite,
Whoa. Hold up. Where do I say that? I thought I was being pretty clear here. I post out of spite, or the need to vent or whatever you want to call it. I object on different grounds altogether.
Indignation over policy decisions. Spite because that indignation is wholly ignored, even when shared by the majority.you'd object to this being pointed out when you're trying to sell your indignation as something other than spite.....
Nope, you're just misreading my posts.Sounds, how shall I put this, self-serving to me.....You've said that the only way the system can be fixed is by being replaced. That rules out fixing the system by democratically invoked changeNope. Again, you're misreading me. We couldn't realistically bring in direct democracy in this country through democratic means - but that's because of the nature of Irish politicians, not the system of representative democracy itself.
I'd prefer 4 - evolution, myself..which only leaves conquest, externally-forced change, or revolution. The first two would be against your belief in independance I'm guessing, which really only leaves option 3 - revolution
Actually, I could - if there was some way to legally bind a party to it's election promisesNor can you ever see people voting for a party with that as a platform in sufficient numbers to ever bring about change.
Nope. Again, misreading me. I'm not saying they'd never vote for it - I'm saying the exact opposite, they would vote for it - but they'll never be given the chance to by politicians of Ahern's ilk.which would once again seem contradictory unless you're saying that the people will never know they want it unless its given to them, but once they had it, the blinding apparentness of its brilliance would suddenly make them all sit up and want ot hold on to something they never asked for and never would have voted for?
Massive? Compared to switzerland or compared to zimbabwe?Personally, I think the Irish system gives the voters massive amounts of power that - as a populace - is being grossly squandered.
Flawed analogy - it ignores legislation passed by government.As a simple analagy, take pollution. The parallel to your argument would be that the public can do nothing about pollution, because ultimately it is out of their control and in the hands of major corporations who the public effectively can do nothing about. Ergo, the only way to beat pollution is to change the fundamntals of capitalism.
Experience JC. If you'd asked me on the march before the war whether or not the largest civil protests in the state would have any effect on the government's policy-making process, I'd have said "of course it would!". But we learnt differently, didn't we?Strangely, for a man who wants so desperately to see the system changed, you spend a lot of energy telling people how they cannot change it......
Plus, years of dealing with various civil service departments gives you a solid impression of how they see the world.
Combine the two and it's not a pretty picture.0 -
Originally posted by Sparks
Whoa. Hold up. Where do I say that? I thought I was being pretty clear here.
If you were being pretty clear, sparks, I wouldn't be asking these questions
I asked on what grounds you were complaining for if - as you insisted - the system could not be fixed, and you said spite.
Now, by taking your answer to that question, and stating it as such, you're asking me where you said it? Look at what you were answering and you'll see exactly where you said it.
Nope, you're just misreading my posts.
Sparks, when it suits you, the system is broken and can only be fixed by replacement with a better one, because those who can change it are - according to you - exactly teh same group who don't want it changed.
Other times, when it suits you, you're up in arms demanding changes.
Now, either the system can be improved through public pressure, or it can't. You are arguing both sides alternately and insisting that I'm misreading you because I'm pointing out that the two stances are incompatible.
So...lets stop the confusion...which is it? The system can, or cannot be changed from within?
Which is change of the existing system, which can only be achieved by changing those running the system, which is exactly what you are saying won't do a damned thing in your first post here.
I'd prefer 4 - evolution, myself..
And you're also saying that a change of candidate is not hte solution.
Nope. Again, misreading me. I'm not saying they'd never vote for it - I'm saying the exact opposite, they would vote for it - but they'll never be given the chance to by politicians of Ahern's ilk.
So, the current lot are not the solution. New candidates are not the solution. Revolution is not the solution.
You're ruling out every possible solution here, Sparks. Every single way of changing the system is "not the solution", but your solution is to change the system.
HOW???????
Massive in that they have the power to elect who they choose, and therefore have the power to elect people willing to enact the changes they wish to see enacted.
Massive? Compared to switzerland or compared to zimbabwe?
The fact that people are not doing this is not the fault of the system.
Not a flawed analagy. Many of the anti-pollution steps brought about on the continent (Germany and Switzerland, notably) were done so because of public want. The law was made to reflect the wishes of the people...not because it had to, but because of the basic principles of competition...enough people wanted these laws, so whoever was offering them was in, and whoever opposed them was out.
Flawed analogy - it ignores legislation passed by government.
And it worked.....
Experience JC.
No, its not experience. Its fatalism.
Your so-called "experience" tells us that nothing which has been previously attempted but never succeeded is worth trying because it will fail.
You have previously stated that previous governments were better then the current one, the logic must hold that the system does not enforce the current quality of government on us. It also must hold that we are at least capable of returning to the level of quality of these governments.
So how does experience show you that this is false? That things won't get better? That things can't get better?
And, if things can be improved to the levels they once were at under the same system, why is it impossible that things cannot improve beyond that point? What is there to indicate that the earlier "better" govenments were the epitomy of the best possible implementation of our system?
Experience? Experience tells me only other people die.
Its an inherently untrustworthy benchmark for stuff like absolutes - what is and is not possible.
Also, given that you have previously acknowledged that you are not a Smurfitt, Desmond, etc.....how can you not also acknowledge that you may simply not be one of the people capable of bringing about change, instead of saying that because change has not come about in your experiences of campaigning for it that it cannot come about.
jc0 -
*lol*Originally posted by bonkey
If you were being pretty clear, sparks, I wouldn't be asking these questions
Yes, but you're mixing up why I complain (ie. why I waste my time posting here about these things) and why I have a complaint in the first place.I asked on what grounds you were complaining for if - as you insisted - the system could not be fixed, and you said spite.
The first is for spite and catharsis, the second is down to ideology.
Yes.Sparks, when it suits you, the system is broken and can only be fixed by replacement with a better one, because those who can change it are - according to you - exactly teh same group who don't want it changed.
Yes.Other times, when it suits you, you're up in arms demanding changes.
And there isn't any dichotomy. The system needs to be changed, but we won't be able to get politicians to change it themselves because it's not in their best interest to ever even think of it. However, you can occasionally get thrown a bone to shut you up if it's a minor matter, so sometimes you can get what you want by being the squeaky wheel. To stretch the analogy, a squeaky wheel gets greased, but no matter how much it squeaks, it's not going to get it's owner replaced with a racing pit crew.
It can't. But our situation can be.Now, either the system can be improved through public pressure, or it can't.
Technically, it can be. However, realistically it cannot be, because those whom you need to support your cause will be your most staunch enemies on this.which is it? The system can, or cannot be changed from within?
Yup. I said I'd prefer it JC, not that it would work. I'd prefer all such changes to be gradual and properly planned, but nothing ever seems to go that way in this country - we leave it go till it gets so bad that something, anything has to be done, and then the minimal amount gets rushed through, mistakes are made and pretty soon after, we're back to square one.Which is change of the existing system, which can only be achieved by changing those running the system, which is exactly what you are saying won't do a damned thing in your first post here.
No, revolution could technically be a solution. It's just not one I'd prefer to pursue because it's destructive.So, the current lot are not the solution. New candidates are not the solution. Revolution is not the solution.
Well,You're ruling out every possible solution here, Sparks.
1) I never said there was a solution at all, and,
2) So far we've only ruled out those ones we know of now...
You think I'd be posting here if I knew?HOW???????
Lovely in theory. In practise, there's a reason why we assign no weight to campaign promises - they're never adhered to. So what we actually have is the right to choose from those we are presented with (and we cannot refuse to choose one of them) and let them run the country with little or no controls for the next five years. At which point the best we can do is do the same thing again with another bunch of fools.Massive in that they have the power to elect who they choose, and therefore have the power to elect people willing to enact the changes they wish to see enacted.
And you think we're born fatalists? No, we're not. We become fatalistic through experience.No, its not experience. Its fatalism.
No, it tells us that appealing to due process or citing "the right thing to do" will not influence a politician if his self-interest is involved in going a certain way on a policy matter.Your so-called "experience" tells us that nothing which has been previously attempted but never succeeded is worth trying because it will fail.
Yes, but remember that just because having someone punch you on the nose is better than having someone punch you in the throat ,doesn't mean that the former is "good" in any sense other than relative to the latter...You have previously stated that previous governments were better then the current one, the logic must hold that the system does not enforce the current quality of government on us. It also must hold that we are at least capable of returning to the level of quality of these governments.
Well, I experienced reading economic forecasts that pointed towards a severe downturn in the economy before, and nothing stopped that downturn from hitting us. Now I'm seeing the same kind of reports (tied to the 2007 date when we start paying into the EU instead of receiving from it) and I know that the money we could have used to get our infrastructure improved so that our one natural resource (our workforce) could be most effectively used, has gone and won't return.So how does experience show you that this is false? That things won't get better? That things can't get better?
And I know that when the chips are down, our politicians scurry for every rock, crevice and dark corner to save their own wallets and it usually takes years for everyone else's situation to improve and that that happens because of external changes, not internal policies.
So that's how it tells me it's going to get worse JC.
No, experience tells you that you will as well - you just have to listen to it even when it says things you don't want to hear. It'll tell you that you've been sick in the past, you've been cut and bled, you've been bruised, and that you are, in short, mortal and fragile.Experience? Experience tells me only other people die.
Because I wasn't on my own. I was in the largest civil protest in the nation's history, with the possible exception of the PAYE strikes of the 70s. And nothing happened.Also, given that you have previously acknowledged that you are not a Smurfitt, Desmond, etc.....how can you not also acknowledge that you may simply not be one of the people capable of bringing about change, instead of saying that because change has not come about in your experiences of campaigning for it that it cannot come about.0 -
-
Originally posted by Cork
I have been involved with 2 political openion polls that were both picked up by national media.
You'd get something similar - I doubt it'd be quite so universal a condemnation, but then our politicians are something in a class of their own...They are a snap shot. The results in yesterdays paper were not even newsworthy. You would get the same responses in Western Soceity as a whole.
No, they're not. Especially not Fianna Fail.People are not too fond of policiticians?
Indeed it would - it'd mean a FF TD wasn't a tax dodging, lying, bribed, drunk driverIt would be newsworthy-if they were. 0 -
-
-
Originally posted by Sparks
And there isn't any dichotomy. The system needs to be changed, but we won't be able to get politicians to change it themselves because it's not in their best interest to ever even think of it.
But thats a flawed argument. We can elect whoever we want. You are extending your analysis of "the politicians you don't like" to "all elected representatives - past, present, and theoretical future".
Are you telling me that if you were elected in the morning, you would suddenly decide that your ideals of reforming the system should go out the window in favour of ripping off the public?
My point is that arguing we are powerless makes us powerless.
You argue, for example that an alternative representative is not the solution. Why not? Which is a better message to send to a group like Fianna Fail :
1) I don't like you, or the others, so I will not vote. In effect, I choose not to oppose or support you.
2) I dislike you and your policies so much taht I will back - and encourage others to back - any alternative, even if I think he or she is a complete muppet, because you are worse.
I'd go with option 2. Someone is going to get elected, and I'd rather a new muppet then an experienced crooked one.
Now, if enough people did that, what would we get? And before anyone answers "a group of different muppets running the country", I would suggest that you stop thinking in terms of the immediate quick fix. You may get a group of different muppets, but then you vote for someone else in the following election. And you do it again, and again, and again, until someone realises that the only way to actually keep votes is to start behaving in the way that voters want them to.
Sure, that will give us several terms of crap governments, who do nothing to make the nation better....but thats the same damn thing the complainers are saying we already have. So why not do it. At least you get to stick it to the people you've hated for years, and then exchange them for a whole new bunch of targets to hate...just for variety!
Look at how the public took on Nike about eastern sweat-shop usage. Yes, things may have only gotten from the jab-to-the-larynx to the punch-on-the-nose stage, but its progress, and more pressure can bring more progress.
Take out the big player. Advocate that whoever is at the top should be voted out, regardless of who they are, if they do not run a clean shop. So even if FG are no better in your eyes then FF, give them the vote this time. Next time, if FG haven't delivered the goods, give it to someone else. Better still, vote for the independants, the underdog parties...teh groups who simply can't get enough position to become a real power. Becayse every single seat that these factions win is a seat away fomr the majority, and away from a cosy established coalition, and into the arms of a party who know they will disappear off the face of the planet if they let you down, cause you'll just dump them like a hot potato.
You have one vote....which means SFA in the overall tally. But why waste energy telling everyone and their dog "you can do nothing about it", when you could be suggesting that they all do similarly to you.
And here's the thing....while fatalists/realists like Sparks will tell us immediately that such a thing would never work, its never been tried. No-one has ever mounted a challenge to the serious parties where the offered solution was something other than suggesting an alternate party/coalition to put in power.
The only reason that it can't is because the public believe it can't, and therefore choose not to.
It can't.
Thats simply not true. You're still thinking in terms of "which existing politician / party can I lend my support to in order to make things better" and extending that to say that because you can't do that, then you can do nothing with the entire system.
Technically, it can be. However, realistically it cannot be, because those whom you need to support your cause will be your most staunch enemies on this.
The reality of politics is in how we choose to use it. We decide that reality, not the politicians.
No you wouldn't. You're complaining that your mass demonstration didn't have an immediate effect on government policy and actions. If it did, then there is no way that effect could have been planned and considered. It would have been as kneejerk in nature as the original decision you were protesting against, but you wanted it so bad you were on the streets campaigning for it.I'd prefer all such changes to be gradual and properly planned,
but nothing ever seems to go that way in this country - we leave it go till it gets so bad that something, anything has to be done, and then the minimal amount gets rushed through, mistakes are made and pretty soon after, we're back to square one.
Yes - we do indeed let it go far too long....and then we stand back, and blame the politicians that we let away, and the system that we control, when all along it was we who let it go.
And once we decide that its time to do something, all that nice fine speech about considered action, well-thought-out change, planning, etc. goes out teh window, and its a "what do we want? <insert demand here>. When do we want it? NOW!!!!!" parade all over again.
And then, come the next election, how do we punish our elected representatives for letting us down so badly? Why, we go out and vote for them all voer again. Or we decide not to, and remove ourselves from the equation, neither supporting nor opposing them.
But its their fault.
And any ones we can think of as well.....tried or not.
2) So far we've only ruled out those ones we know of now...
Has anyone tried starting at the bottom? Reclaiming local government for the locals, and effectively removing the major parties' sphere of influence at local level? Nope, didn't think so.
There is so much which hasn't been tried and it all gets discarded on the "would never work", which really means "won't work by the next election".
And thats the biggest problem in my opinion. People seem to think that a workable solution would be something that would sort us out in the next election...or definitely by the one after that. The Peace Process in the North...now that can take generations and we know it....but dealing with the best part of a century of ingrained blind party allegience and the ensuing corruption that is indeed endemic....that should have a quick fix.
If you didn't know, I'd assume that you'd be posting here that you don't know...not that the solution can only come about through specific things.
You think I'd be posting here if I knew?
So why all the indignation when they're broken? Why is so much effort put in to them? Why is the entire election run on them. You and I may be aware that they are a farce, Sparks, but that does not mean they have no weight attached to them by the voting public.
Lovely in theory. In practise, there's a reason why we assign no weight to campaign promises - they're never adhered to.
Yes, and lets have another bunch of fools. At least it means that the current bunch get whats coming to them. Hell, that should appease your spite. If you can't fix the system, you can at least try shafting in turn each and every one of the bastids who cause the problems. Who knows...maybe one of them will realise why you're doing it.At which point the best we can do is do the same thing again with another bunch of fools.
But if you know both are possible, and you're currently being punched in the throat, you have to ask why you're suffering so much. And once you get back to being punched in the throat, you have to ask that having been able to make things a little better, why can't such improvement continue.
Yes, but remember that just because having someone punch you on the nose is better than having someone punch you in the throat ,doesn't mean that the former is "good" in any sense other than relative to the latter...
Still thinking inside two full election terms.....within that timeframe, there is no solution, nor can there be. I didn't think you were so short-sighted though.
So that's how it tells me it's going to get worse JC.
No, it tells me that I've been sick, bruised, I've bled, and I've always gotten better. Its other people who sometimes die from it, not me.
No, experience tells you that you will as well - you just have to listen to it even when it says things you don't want to hear. It'll tell you that you've been sick in the past, you've been cut and bled, you've been bruised, and that you are, in short, mortal and fragile.
Nothing in my experience says that I am mortal.
At the very least, you do accept that experience is only as good as what you see in it. Now, are you arrogant enough to believe that your perceptions based on your experiences are accurate enough to reflect the reality for the entire nation? If so, you should probably be in politics - thats their type of thinkingBecause I wasn't on my own. I was in the largest civil protest in the nation's history, with the possible exception of the PAYE strikes of the 70s. And nothing happened.
And you're not even talking months there, let alone two terms of office...let alone generations.
I dunno...maybe the reason there's no cure is because people want the McCure To Go. Preferably with a special gift, and an introductory low price.
jc0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
there are a lot of smoke and mirrors out there that confuse issues and undermine people's confidencs in their own 'power' to change things. If politicians aren't going to do what they say they will and get away with blaming other factors, then it is very hard to pin them down and force them to do the right thing in the people's interest, hence there are barriers beyond the individuals control to make their electoral decision.I don't think so. Its more like "have we no power because we refuse to use the power we have" vs. "do we refuse to use the power we have because we have no power".
bonkey
there is no credible alternative out there that could eliminate the need for leaders(politicians). society depends on leaders taking decisions based on a representative mandate.Time for a better system, not new politicians, who will just become as bad as the ones we have now.
sparks
That doesn't take into account the influence that other interests have over the electorate who sometimes actively advocate the status quo to the detriment of the the people and like it or not the people will never be able to change all the things that are wrong in the system so at least some parts of the system cannot be changedThe only way the system can cause the mindset is when people start believing that they cannot change the system.
bonkey
Lolquote: 'you're ruling out every possible solution here sparks' well(1) i never said there was a solution at all
sparks There is a truth that you can't predict the future and we don't know what will end up happening. Sometimes these things happen bit by bit with possibilities presenting themselves as we go along.
No first rule, who is doing the opinion poll and why are they doing it!No, first rule is "Read The Full Question"....
sparks
it doesn't always feel like that thoughWe can elect whoever we want.
Local government has been crippled by a lack of authority and lack of relevance, even controllong local government you would still be under a lot of discretion of the Minister for Environment and city/county managers.Has anyone tried starting at the bottom? Reclaiming local government for the locals, and effectively removing the major parties' sphere of influence at local level? Nope, didn't think so.
bonkey
GREAT DEBATE! 0 -
Sheesh. One little lightning strike, and you wind up several posts behind the argument
Oh well...
Actually we don't. We choose the best from a fixed group of options, without any ability to say "no, none of these are acceptable".Originally posted by bonkey
But thats a flawed argument. We can elect whoever we want.
Which is valid, because our system requires a particular set of attributes to be common amongst all politicians - the important one being that they want their jobs. And they won't risk those jobs for something they don't have to support.You are extending your analysis of "the politicians you don't like" to "all elected representatives - past, present, and theoretical future".
If it happened instantly, without any effort to get the job, there would be a chance I could keep my ideals. But the thing is, as the adage goes, power corrupts. The size of the paycheck would be really rather tempting, and face it, I'm human - if I've got mine and my future's secure, why should I give a tuppeny **** about the rest of you plebs?Are you telling me that if you were elected in the morning, you would suddenly decide that your ideals of reforming the system should go out the window in favour of ripping off the public?
And that is one of the reasons why I don't believe in representative democracy, right there.
And I think that's a lovely sentiment jc, it's just that history proves you wrong. At best protest has calmed the actions of governments - and even then at a price. Nixon didn't use nuclear weapons in Vietnam - but at the price of students being shot at Kent State. But the war went on anyway until economic forces ended it.My point is that arguing we are powerless makes us powerless.
I'd go with option 3 - none of the above. Look bonkey, you're young. So am I by comparison the the electorate. You try convincing a 50-year-old with three kids and a morgage to elect a total muppet just to spite FF - they won't do it, through sheer fear of the outcome. They reason that FF will screw them over, but not by as much as an incompetent muppet would. But they'd vote for none-of-the-above in a heartbeat because that's a risk-free choiceYou argue, for example that an alternative representative is not the solution. Why not? Which is a better message to send to a group like Fianna Fail :
1) I don't like you, or the others, so I will not vote. In effect, I choose not to oppose or support you.
2) I dislike you and your policies so much taht I will back - and encourage others to back - any alternative, even if I think he or she is a complete muppet, because you are worse.
I'd go with option 2. Someone is going to get elected, and I'd rather a new muppet then an experienced crooked one.
And that is why you're wrong bonkey. You're right in that there isn't a quick fix - but if you expect someone with a wife, three kids, a job and a morgage to repay to vote for a series of incompetent governments deliberately, without any guarantee that the tactic will work, you're in for a disappointment.I would suggest that you stop thinking in terms of the immediate quick fix.
Because that's the best route in my eyes - emphasise how your vote is cheapened, and hope that people get pissed off at not having any real say in policy decision-making and that eventually they decide to change it. Even if it's only to get "small" things - a none-of-the-above option on the ballot, no electronic voting systems that are insecure and unauditable, and so on.You have one vote....which means SFA in the overall tally. But why waste energy telling everyone and their dog "you can do nothing about it", when you could be suggesting that they all do similarly to you.
Actually bonkey, since the government's actions flew in the face of over fifty years of precedence, stopping what they were doing would have been a considered course of action. And given the amount of public debate on the topic at the time, it couldn't have been called unplanned or knee-jerk.No you wouldn't. You're complaining that your mass demonstration didn't have an immediate effect on government policy and actions. If it did, then there is no way that effect could have been planned and considered.
Bonkey, my point is that we don't have control of the system at present, not in any meaningful form.Yes - we do indeed let it go far too long....and then we stand back, and blame the politicians that we let away, and the system that we control, when all along it was we who let it go.
JC, you want to remove the major parties' sphere of influence at local level? Good luck - central government has been steadily working at castrating local government for the last decade or so.Has anyone tried starting at the bottom? Reclaiming local government for the locals, and effectively removing the major parties' sphere of influence at local level? Nope, didn't think so.
So let me get this straight - we're at fault for not wanting a solution within ten years?And thats the biggest problem in my opinion. People seem to think that a workable solution would be something that would sort us out in the next election...or definitely by the one after that.
Well gee. I feel rebuked. Bonkey, I could fix this within a year or two, if I had enough money. So it's a bit much to expect us to wait two or three generations for this to finish. I want to benefit from this, after all.
That's something I've never figured out. But then again, I've never figured out why people put such faith in parapsychology and other such rubbish either.So why all the indignation when they're broken? Why is so much effort put in to them? Why is the entire election run on them.
So inside ten years, we cannot put into place a system that works where you're sitting, even through you've got twice our population? And even though, with enough money, I could arrange it within two years?Still thinking inside two full election terms.....within that timeframe, there is no solution, nor can there be. I didn't think you were so short-sighted though.
Hmph.
Really?Nothing in my experience says that I am mortal.
There's a scar on my hand where it was pinned to a table by the unburred corner of a 19" rack during a summer job as an undergrad. There's another on the roof of my mouth where I put a tin whistle through it. And another on the side of my face from chicken pox, and another on my thigh from where I tore it in a fall as a kid, and there's permanent nerve damage in my right thigh from target shooting in a bad posture, and I'm not even very accident-prone. But these permanent after-effects have done a very good job of proving to me that I'm not immortal - parts of me can be injured and hell, looking in the mirror shows that parts of me can die.
I think it's more to do with not being willing to sacrifice quality of life for several decades so their grandkids might enjoy a better life, if it all goes well. We're not talking some academic exercise here bonkey - we're talking about people with huge morgages and families risking taking severe economic hits or worse. If I had a morgage and a family (and in less than two elections I probably will), I wouldn't give support to any plan that carried that much risk for my family without any guarantee of success.I dunno...maybe the reason there's no cure is because people want the McCure To Go. Preferably with a special gift, and an introductory low price.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement