FF Voters - Please apologise here.....

brianthebard

javaboy wrote: »

That's all well and good but Enda Kenny isn't cool. We can't have someone uncharismatic as Taoiseach ffs! How the hell is he supposed to run the country if he doesn't look like someone you might have a few pints with?

We need a real charismatic leader like Mugabe or Castro or Sarkozy or Berlusconi.

How about Chavez?

javaboy

taidghbaby wrote: »

all we hear is that the recession is due to global circumstances......and yes it probably is to a certain extent!! however our "celtic tiger" was also the result of global factors but they were well able to take ALL the plaudits that came with that-think 3 successive terms in office!!

if your gonna bask in the success of the good times then you should also be big enough to put up your hands when things are going wrong!!

+1. When things go good it's us. When things go bad it's somebody else. I FF.

jaycen

javaboy wrote: »

I'm really confused. Even with hindsight, you would vote FF again? This is despite the fact that FF have made a bags of the economy. You say you vote based on what you think will happen if they win.... but you know what happens when FF win. You're living in it. And you'd still vote FF?

You sound like a party voter to me.

Joker wrote: »

That's a pathetic excuse for logic. You've seen the mismanagment now, and in the past. And yet you still voted for them.

The FGers tried to save money to help us through a Fianna Fail-sponsered train-wreck of an economy! The result: the Fianna Failures got back in and spent it all and wrecked the economy. (Think CJH!)

For God's sake people, wake the **** up.

I am not in any way a party voter, I want my vote to mean something.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that FG wouldn't have had the same problem? They would have halted the Banks from lending in such a wreckless way - come on.

FG havn't the best record on the economy at last glance either.

I don't rate Enda Kenny at all, his announcement (and personal contradiction) of a paycut was made without notifying his collegues (he even apologised on mike), is that any way to run an opposition or a country for that matter?

On an aside, seeing as you think I am a FF voter, I rate Richard Bruton much higher than Cowan and co but until he leads the party I won't vote for it.

javaboy

brianthebard wrote: »

How about Chavez?

If he's running next election, I'll vote for him.

My point is just that charisma shouldn't be that big a requirement in a leader.

javaboy

jaycen wrote: »

I am not in any way a party voter, I want my vote to mean something.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that FG wouldn't have had the same problem? They would have halted the Banks from lending in such a wreckless way - come on.

I don't know really. I accept it's unlikely that any party would have prevented us from being in a similar recession to almost every other country in the world. But the economy is just one issue. FF have been in power for the most successful time in our history and have not fixed important things like the health service, education, transport etc. It's not all about the economy.

FG havn't the best record on the economy at last glance either.

What record are you talking about? They've barely had a chance to do anything but you might remember them being in power just before the Celtic tiger rolled into town.

I don't rate Enda Kenny at all, his announcement (and personal contradiction) of a paycut was made without notifying his collegues (he even apologised on mike), is that any way to run an opposition or a country for that matter?

Oh noes! A politician pulled a publicity stunt! Thank God FF never did anything so shallow.
Is repeated screw ups and scandals any way to run a country?

On an aside, seeing as you think I am a FF voter, I rate Richard Bruton much higher than Cowan and co but until he leads the party I won't vote for it.

I'd much prefer to see Bruton in charge too but if FG were in government, he would get the highest ministerial position i.e. Finance. Minister for Finance is in many ways more influential to how the country is run than the Taoiseach.

For one thing the Minister has to attend less international/social events than the Taoiseach.

EamonnKeane

mickdw wrote: »

Sorry!

However imagine if kenny was in charge. He was calling for much more give aways at the last budget and yet he says FF squandered everything.

It is a very underhand budget though. that 1% levy is really dirty.
They would have had to raise the tax bands a few % to gain as much as this levy gives them. People wouldnt accept a big percentage gain in their tax band so this is very sneaky.

How can it be a "give away" when it is OUR money?

Marcus.Aurelius

jaycen wrote: »

I am not in any way a party voter, I want my vote to mean something.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that FG wouldn't have had the same problem? They would have halted the Banks from lending in such a wreckless way - come on.

FG havn't the best record on the economy at last glance either.

I don't rate Enda Kenny at all, his announcement (and personal contradiction) of a paycut was made without notifying his collegues (he even apologised on mike), is that any way to run an opposition or a country for that matter?

On an aside, seeing as you think I am a FF voter, I rate Richard Bruton much higher than Cowan and co but until he leads the party I won't vote for it.

Until people stop voting for FF then the leaders of the country will continue to be self-righteous and so far removed as to be utterly oblivious. Well done.

earlyevening

If you remember the election, most of the parties had the same basic points in their manifestos. They were all claiming they'd cut tax (even SF and labour). It seems they were all just trying to copy FF and not proposing much different - virtually everything would be the same if you had voted in some other party except I'd say their inexperience etc would have had them trembling with all the whoo - ha in the last few weeks.
Where would anyone else cover the 10bn shortfall we had this year - the 2bn of tax cuts had to be made. They seemed reasonably fair to me.

Marcus.Aurelius

earlyevening wrote: »

If you remember the election, most of the parties had the same basic points in their manifestos. They were all claiming they'd cut tax (even SF and labour). It seems they were all just trying to copy FF and not proposing much different - virtually everything would be the same if you had voted in some other party except I'd say their inexperience etc would have had them trembling with all the whoo - ha in the last few weeks.
Where would anyone else cover the 10bn shortfall we had this year - the 2bn of tax cuts had to be made. They seemed reasonably fair to me.

What about the fact that the central bank would have loaned us the 10 billion to cover a shortfall that would have been rendered temporary by the reasonably steady run of consumer spending? Thanks to the idiot lenihan, consumers are now much less confident and have a lot less cash to spill around. Not to mention the 20,000 over 70s that the Fianna Failures have cast into the pit of no return. Nobody can afford medicine at full cost at that age. It's sickening and cravenly cowardly to continue to support such a souless greed machine as FF. :mad:

ShooterSF

Didnt vote FF myself, cant understand people voting them in and giving out for the next 5 years then voting them in again. Even if no other party could do any better they can hardly do worse and it might give politicians an actual incentive to do a good job or they might loose their seat.
What incentive does the attitude of vote them in anyway give politicians. "Hmm. I can run a muck round here doesnt matter cause my boss (the people) will keep employed regardless "

On 2 topics that do bug me why is this bank saving tactic so great? Where's the money to help out the working class family that borrowed from the bank and is now struggling to repay the mortgage? Will the bank be as lenient on them?

Also why the hell is child benefit still not means tested? Why should over 70s have to qualify for a medical card yet multi millionaire families still get a few quid into the bank account that they don't need?

javaboy

ShooterSF wrote: »

On 2 topics that do bug me why is this bank saving tactic so great? Where's the money to help out the working class family that borrowed from the bank and is now struggling to repay the mortgage? Will the bank be as lenient on them?

Unfortunately punishing the banks by letting them fail would be cutting our nose off to spite our faces. If the banks collapsed, we'd suffer a serious depression. The working class family (and everyone else) would have it much worse if the banks were allowed to collapse.

Also why the hell is child benefit still not means tested? Why should over 70s have to qualify for a medical card yet multi millionaire families still get a few quid into the bank account that they don't need?

+1. All these things should be means tested. Why are student grants means tested and these things not?

j1smithy

A typical reactionary thread worthy of AH. Although I dislike the fact I have to pay more taxes, it seems an awful lot of people don't know how the country is actually run... its depressing actually...

javaboy

j1smithy wrote: »

A typical reactionary thread worthy of AH. Although I dislike the fact I have to pay more taxes, it seems an awful lot of people don't know how the country is actually run... its depressing actually...

I've no problem paying more tax for the job to be done right.

earlyevening

As I understand it, giving medical cards to the over 70s cost the state 100 million a year, 80 million of which was paid to GPs. Thus its basic GP services that Granny will have to pay for, not expensive operations etc. Plus its only wealthy (over 34k per single gran) who will have to pay. These old folk can well afford it. The ones of middling wealth will get doctor only cards (this will satisfy most of their needs). The dirt poor will retain full med cards.
Wealthy (retired senior civil sevants/property developers and retired hospital consultants etc) can live with out it.
The hysteria over this is ridiculous. Some of the comments on Duffy etc are just blatantly wrong.
All this nonsense of "these people built this country and this is the way we treat them...". I'm building it right now and you don't hear me complain. Old dudes only got the free med card in 2001 and will be OK again without it.
I thought it was fair enough that we all make a sacrafice in this period. I thought old punters would be happy to do their patriotic duty and tear up their free med cards.


And by the way, who said we could borrow the 10 bn shortfall? We've borrowed something like 6bn which is way over our borrowing limit as agreed within the EU. Again it only seems prudent to borrow a bit, cutback a bit and raise tax a bit.

I'm still not going with FG/LAB. Why do they keep on going on and on and on about the tax exiles who pay no tax. There's only about 6 of them!!

I know this is after hours so sorry. Phew. I need a cup of tea.

ShooterSF

javaboy wrote: »

Unfortunately punishing the banks by letting them fail would be cutting our nose off to spite our faces. If the banks collapsed, we'd suffer a serious depression. The working class family (and everyone else) would have it much worse if the banks were allowed to collapse.

True. It's not something that sits comfortable with me but i guess it had to be done. I just hope if the banks have to use this money that the people get some kind of share in the banks.

+1. All these things should be means tested. Why are student grants means tested and these things not?

True. Social benefits should be means tested especially if we're tightening our belts.

earlyevening wrote: »

I thought old punters would be happy to do their patriotic duty and tear up their free med cards.

I agree with means testing a medical card at a high treshhold but patriotic duty is aload of balls marched out by governments when they make disliked decisions. Im sure our over 70s have already done their "patriotic duty".
Also earlyevening I'd be interested in your opinion whether FF should have made child benefit means tested?

OPENROAD

ShooterSF wrote: »

patriotic duty

Please tell me that he didn't use those words during the budget.

Wertz

j1smithy wrote: »

it seems an awful lot of people don't know how the country is actually run...

Don't they? Well from the outside looking in it can only be apparent to an awful lot of people that it's actually run quite badly ....the proof of the pudding being last tuesday.
Had provision been made during the good times, instead of squander, wastage and downright fraud then the essential monies for vital services that we are now being forced to cough up even more for, may have been more plentiful and we'd've avoided having to hit every single person in the country for even more tax to make up the shortfall of the "neverending" stream of stamp duty and VAT earned on large credit funded purchases during the boom years.

Guy:Incognito

What are people appologising for now? the world economy going into the crapper?


I assume people think that an Enda Kenny led government would have been announcing mass tax cuts and free money for all on Tues?

cabrwab

I knew the budget would be really tough on everybody. But its the green taxes that annoy the most. Title should be changed to anyone who voted the greens say sorry, and stop using electricity your creating climate change!

I do think if i voted FF i would apologise as they gave the biggest pile of bull-plop last year to stay in power, however no more then any other party to get in there, but just for the bertie factor the pay rises they've being handing themselves over the last 11 years the shambles of a health system they've helped create and the squandering of tax payers money over the last number of years.

But most importantly the NOT holding the election on a weekend to help everyone get out and vote instead hold it mid-week so the people we are scared of the most won't vote.

FF will do the same thing they do every election, before election give great tax slashing budget, year after election raise taxes.

j1smithy

Wertz wrote: »

Don't they? Well from the outside looking in it can only be apparent to an awful lot of people that it's actually run quite badly ....the proof of the pudding being last tuesday.
Had provision been made during the good times, instead of squander, wastage and downright fraud then the essential monies for vital services that we are now being forced to cough up even more for, may have been more plentiful and we'd've avoided having to hit every single person in the country for even more tax to make up the shortfall of the "neverending" stream of stamp duty and VAT earned on large credit funded purchases during the boom years.

Well for one it wasn't Brian Lenihan that actually wrote the budget, it was his team of civil servents. While Mr. Lenihan is a very intelligent man, him being senior counsel, it cannot be expected that he would have a the training to deal with the nuances of running an economy. He has his advisors and I'm sure takes their advice. They don't change no matter who wins an election.

When people say, "you know they should have taken the heat out of the construction industry a few years ago and not let this bubble form" what they are really saying is that stamp duty should have been shoved up to stop people from buying houses. Layoffs would have followed, and people would have been pissed off. There would have been no boom at all, and we would have had relatively high unemployment earlier. It also would have been a disaster politically for the government of the time.

As for the new taxes, now I don't like paying them either, but when they say the rich should be made pay for our problems, doesn't understand how the economy works. Tax rich people and they leave, the money leaves the economy and the government gets none. Think about it, there is obviously a very good reason why the government wouldn't approve of such a politically popular measure.

earlyevening

OPENROAD wrote: »

Please tell me that he didn't use those words during the budget.

The "patriotic duty" line was the last thing he said in his speeech.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also earlyevening I'd be interested in your opinion whether FF should have made child benefit means tested?

Although I understand the argument that the payment is for the child and not the parents and that the parents wealth should be inadmissable, I do think it should be means tested.

I also think that as they were amalgamating all those state commisions etc that they should have lumped a few junior ministries together agin.

cabrwab wrote: »

I do think if i voted FF i would apologise as they gave the biggest pile of bull-plop last year to stay in power, however no more then any other party to get in there, but just for the bertie factor the pay rises they've being handing themselves over the last 11 years

Everybody got big pay rises over the last 10 yrs. It must be remembered that the cabinet have taken pay cuts recently. Will you?

earlyevening

j1smithy wrote: »

Well for one it wasn't Brian Lenihan that actually wrote the budget, it was his team of civil servents. While Mr. Lenihan is a very intelligent man, him being senior counsel, it cannot be expected that he would have a the training to deal with the nuances of running an economy. He has his advisors and I'm sure takes their advice. They don't change no matter who wins an election.

When people say, "you know they should have taken the heat out of the construction industry a few years ago and not let this bubble form" what they are really saying is that stamp duty should have been shoved up to stop people from buying houses. Layoffs would have followed, and people would have been pissed off. There would have been no boom at all, and we would have had relatively high unemployment earlier. It also would have been a disaster politically for the government of the time.

Civil servants will advise the minister what is possible. He decides policy based on what they set forth.

During the property boom, the puiblic were screaming for a reduction of stamp duty etc. Now they're screaming that the stoopid government should have raised taxes during the boom.
Now I don't like to say that the mob is stupid but...

Wertz

earlyevening wrote: »

During the property boom, the puiblic were screaming for a reduction of stamp duty etc.

Indeed they were as the government were seen to be creaming it off the back of the cheap-credit fueled new housing market.
Instead of actually doing it, Cowen who was finance minister at the time opted to hint that he might do it, leading to a stall in the market followed by a brief lull in house prices that was then compounded by matters in the US and now on world markets.

earlyevening wrote: »

Now they're screaming that the stoopid government should have raised taxes during the boom.
Now I don't like to say that the mob is stupid but...

Where is anyone saying that they should have raised taxes during that time? All they had to do was to use the billions of tax they collected at the (generous) going rate in a prudent manner, especially considering where the country was just a decade prior to then.
There was no need to raise taxes then because the cup runneth over...unfortunately the spillage didn't make it as far as the mob and the whole mess has to be mopped up by people who paid their fair share of tax back then as well.

Of course the mob is stupid. Look at who they hand the reigns of power to...

earlyevening

Wertz wrote: »

Indeed they were as the government were seen to be creaming it off the back of the cheap-credit fueled new housing market.
Instead of actually doing it, Cowen who was finance minister at the time opted to hint that he might do it, leading to a stall in the market followed by a brief lull in house prices that was then compounded by matters in the US and now on world markets.

Cowen, at the time said he would certainly not do it. I remember it clearly. A few days later he did a U turn and did change it. It seemed to me that he was against tinkering with stamp duty but cabinet wanted to move.

Its all very easy for any of us with the benefit of hindsight to say what should have been done. Its a different matter to take the big decisions on the day with the everyone looking at you waiting to say "I told you so..."

OPENROAD

earlyevening wrote: »

The "patriotic duty" line was the last thing he said in his speeech.

Jesus wept!

Dinter

earlyevening wrote: »

Its all very easy for any of us with the benefit of hindsight to say what should have been done. Its a different matter to take the big decisions on the day with the everyone looking at you waiting to say "I told you so..."

He's the fukin Minister for Finance at the time. Who else do you think can take the "big decisions"?

Perhaps we shouldn't have chained him to that massive office and limo and maybe we shouldn't have flung bundles of money at him to work less than fukin 90 days a year.

Oh wait a minute, the fat slobbering slug slouched his way into the public eye and cavorted there, jowls wobbling and belly heaving, loving the limelight like a monstrous, slimy, hairless, moth to a flame until it became obvious that the glistening snail trail he blazed led straight down the shitter.

And now his fat spare tyre lips drawn up in a nervous grimace, sweat streaming down his forehead, and his small porcine eyes glaring wildly he fukin dares to say that we need to do more? The citizens of this country built the economy and they did it despite FF not because of them.

Agamemnon

earlyevening wrote: »

Everybody got big pay rises over the last 10 yrs. It must be remembered that the cabinet have taken pay cuts recently. Will you?

We'll all be taking pay cuts with the tax increases. Besides that, politicians are meant to be public servants - they should always take pay cuts and lead by example when times are tough. We find that idea strange because Irish politicians are generally the most self-serving shower of parasites in the western world and we expect them to feather their own nests at our expense.

But the rest of us are not working in the service of the electorate - I work to get money for me, not to serve my company. Politicians are supposed to serve a higher calling and we owe them precisely zero gratitude for paying themselves less of our money.

earlyevening

Dinter wrote: »

He's the fukin Minister for Finance at the time. Who else do you think can take the "big decisions"?

Perhaps we shouldn't have chained him to that massive office and limo and maybe we shouldn't have flung bundles of money at him to work less than fukin 90 days a year.

The citizens of this country built the economy and they did it despite FF not because of them.

Big decisions are made by the cabinet as a whole, not an individual minister. I'm only saying that nobody can make the perfect decision with no downside everytime.

The Dail may not sit all that much but its fair to say that a senior minister of any party works 60 hours a week, 51 weeks a year.

Yeah the citizens built the economy. Government doesnt take the credit for everything. It shouldnt. Its there to guide the direction of growth and place emphasis on certain things/make policy decisions. Its a background thing.

earlyevening

Agamemnon wrote: »

We'll all be taking pay cuts with the tax increases. Besides that, politicians are meant to be public servants - they should always take pay cuts and lead by example when times are tough. We find that idea strange because Irish politicians are generally the most self-serving shower of parasites in the western world and we expect them to feather their own nests at our expense.

But the rest of us are not working in the service of the electorate - I work to get money for me, not to serve my company. Politicians are supposed to serve a higher calling and we owe them precisely zero gratitude for paying themselves less of our money.

What do you want? Anarchy? Somalia has no government. Lets try that. They also have no electricity.
Its not just FF you hate, but democracy. Jeepers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

earlyevening wrote: »

What do you want? Anarchy? Somalia has no government. Lets try that. They also have no electricity.
Its not just FF you hate, but democracy. Jeepers.

Kent Brockman wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work.

It's the best we've got and it's better than nothing, I'll admit, but unless you like watching the rich get richer and poor suffer...