Anything better for Ireland

Somethingmore

I am writing this post as I have spent so much of my time reading other posts who either complain about the government its policies and the people in charge or the inability of the Irish people to stand up and be counted as their civil liberties are being eroded away it's people robbed. I offer this post as an invite for anyone who can channel their anger (and theres' lots of that going around) and actually make something of it.

There are many challenges which face this country today, this current recession is not the root of the problem it is merely a by-product of the much larger issues we must tackle together as a people. Our country needs change and not just the man at the top, and not the blanket cost cuts from "an board snip".

There are much deeper issues which have led us to this point. I do not have any answers, I only have questions. The only thing I know for sure it there has to be something better than this.

• If we remove FF from its position who/what do we put in its place ?

I believe being angry at the current government is not enough we need a plan.

• How do we create policies which are both productive and also have the interests of the irish people at their forefront ?

Curent corporate policy which controls this government is not in the interests of its PEOPLE.

• How do we work together today to ensure protection of those most vulnerable?

Todays cuts are only the start there will be more, if you were not directly or indirectly affected by today's cuts, I guarantee in 12 months time they will affect you.

Again I invite everyone/anyone to contribute here. I am starting to feel like I am on my own. Prove me wrong.

Sand

I think we need to found a new political party. Whose with me?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Sand wrote: »

I think we need to found a new political party. Whose with me?

If the name and logo is catchy, count me in!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mickoneill30

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Excellently put. I'm fed up of hearing of the "vulnerable". No matter what the government wants to cut it's affecting the vulnerable. Everyones "vulnerable" if you look at it from the right perspective. With the size of cuts the goverment needs to make it's going to affect every single person in the country.
Yesterdays 6PM RTE news changed that mantra a bit now. Now everything is an "attack on insert the group that's most likely to cause emotion here"

Regarding the OPs post I think that the main problem with FF is that they seem to twist in the wind with their policies. They announce something, the opposition or unions pop their heads up, the media reports on the "vulnerable" and FF change their policy. Who exactly are the vulnerable? OAPs, single parents, mortgage holders, the unemployed, single income familys, people who need health care, couple in jobs that are just about earning enough to live etc. etc. That's a pretty huge percentage of the population. I've no idea what the numbers of those people are but I'd say we'd be approaching the majority of people in the country there. What's the solution?

Tax the rich? Sure. What counts as rich? And people who say this normally forget (or don't know) that if you taxed every single rich person at 100% (above €100,000) you'd still need to make huge cuts in the economy and, suprise, suprise, affect the vulnerable. Of course then the super rich would leave and end up paying less tax. 47% of the states income tax already comes from 6% of the people (the rich). It's easy and populist for oppostion and unions to say lets squeeze them some more.

I'd have a lot more respect if FF had a goal and went for it properly. No matter what they do there's going to be a lot of pain for most people in the country. FF seem to try to please everyone and end up pleasing nobody.
With that said I don't think if FG or Labour were in power they'd be any different.

But all of that is no use to the OP. I don't know what we could do to fix what we have now either.

Edit:
Disclaimer: I don't fall into the rich category. I'm in one of those vulnerable categories, like most other people in the country.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dob74

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Social Welfare Budget isnt just Jobseekers allowance but also includes OAP, Childrens Allowance and other smaller things.
So I think means testing CA would be the first cut in that budget. Then its work away from there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Do people think there is a high probability of a reemergence of an Irish liberal(/libertarian) party?

jeckel

i'm as sick of hearing about how the wealthy should be protected because they "create employment and stimulate the economy" as i am about the vulnerable needing protection.

ban both points of view outright. then we might get somewhere.

otherwise, we're screwed, get used to it. all that's left is to bend over and take it or be held down.

there's no point in lying to ourselves and saying changing the government will do much good, fianna fail and fianna gael are like a siamese twin that once shared a brain and lost most of it in the sepperation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Its a depressing thought, tbh.

What frustrates me most is that, in the absence of a liberal government, everyone is forced to take the burden of the lavish socialist-esque policies of other governments, whether or not they agree with them or not. I'm fine now, but when I start earning proper I would consider emigrating to somewhere "freer" to escape this.

mickoneill30

jeckel wrote: »

i'm as sick of hearing about how the wealthy should be protected because they "create employment and stimulate the economy" as i am about the vulnerable needing protection.

I haven't really heard people calling for the wealthy to be protected. Who does that?

They're not and they shouldn't be but hearing "tax the rich" is as annoying to hear as "protect the vulnerable" or "attack on X".

Darsad

As a nation / people we are subordinate and lazy when it comes to our politicians we accept and accomodate far too much in the way of inept individuals whose only interest is in feathering their own nests . McCarthy has pointed the finger of blame for our current crisis at our current government and Mr Cowen and yet we sit back and allow them to continue in power. Were we any other country we as a people would have ensured these clowns were removed from power or they as individuals would have resigned but not in good old Ireland ( we banned swords so nobody could fall on them ).

turgon

jeckel wrote: »

i'm as sick of hearing about how the wealthy should be protected because they "create employment and stimulate the economy" as i am about the vulnerable needing protection.

Few suggest they be protected. I suggest they simply be not abused.

jeckel

mickoneill30 wrote: »

I haven't really heard people calling for the wealthy to be protected. Who does that?

donegalfella did above.

They're not and they shouldn't be but hearing "tax the rich" is as annoying to hear as "protect the vulnerable" or "attack on X".

the reason you hear "tax the rich" is because we don't. it's more annoying that we don't tax them than it is that people have to keep pointing out that we don't tax them.

turgon wrote: »

Few suggest they be protected. I suggest they simply be not abused.

protected from abuse then? screw 'em, they've abused the rest of us for long enough and if they get sick of it a f**k off i'll lose no sleep.

mickoneill30

jeckel wrote: »

donegalfella did above.

the reason you hear "tax the rich" is because we don't. it's more annoying that we don't tax them than it is that people have to keep pointing out that we don't tax them.

Are you reading the posts on this thread???

Donegalfella didn't say that. If he did, can you quote him.

In my post it said that 47% of the states income comes from 6% of the population. How is that not taxing the rich? What kind of percentage would you prefer? Actually what kind of percentage would you think would work better? Informed answers only please.

Edit:

jeckel wrote: »

protected from abuse then? screw 'em, they've abused the rest of us for long enough and if they get sick of it a f**k off i'll lose no sleep.

Ah fine. Now I see where you're coming from. Won't bother replying to you in future.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

to me this suggests that the wealthy should be protected from those redistrobutionists.

and where i'm coming from is that this fallacy that the rising tide will float all boats and that the rich and the wealthy will create some sort of functioning economy that equalises us all if they're left to their own devices is just sickening to me. the wealthy should pay their way and if they're not willing to, we don't need them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

why? why shouldn't the rich assume a higher level of responsibility for the sustainance of the society which sustains them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

given that they create their wealth based entirely on the stability of the society in which they exist they, are the greatest beneficiaries of it. if they benefit most, they should pay most.

the old saying, "he who pays the piper calls the tune" can as easily be reversed to say he who's calling the tune needs to stop asking everyone else to pay the piper.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cheers for the article!!

Another problem with talking to people about liberalism is getting over their everyone equal no matter what prejudices. If you suggest they deserve the money because they worked hard you will almost certainly hear allegations they abused the system, or they somehow owe it to "society" or some other wooly argument. I think breaking the "status quo," ie large welfare & nanny state, is always hard.

What would you consider the most liberal country in the world?

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the cyclical element of consumer economics. the employees are the consumers and so, while they rely on employment to consume, the consumption creates employment. employers don't create jobs, demand creates job and the employers facilitate it.

If they benefit from their own entrepreneurship and hard work, why do they owe anybody anything?

see above, they benefit from the facilitation of consumerism that is impossible in the absence of a stable society. in essence they owe it to themselves, it is in their own best interests.

Who is this "piper" and why does he need to be paid?

a free market economic society. he needs to be paid because it is nigh on impossible to create wealth in an unstable society except through brute force. this wouldn't really suit the present rich, to be fair.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

being at number 4 to date doesn't seem to have been an altogether successful strategy. how would being more liberal than we have been to date help, exactly?

and on that number 4 ranking, just to point out, the regulation that was supposed to be there wasn't actually carried out in a lot of cases, which realistically probably made us higher in the ranking.

what exactly do you guys think should be liberalised?

regi

"Protect the most vulnerable" by ensuring we balance the budget as quickly as possible, thus ensuring that we can continue to support them at an economically sustainable lower level.

Since when did "protect the most vulnerable" mean continue to payout money blindly and risk one day soon having nothing left to give them? How will the "vulnerable" feel if we had to stop paying civil service, social welfare, doctors and nurses?

turgon

jeckel wrote: »

being at number 4 to date doesn't seem to have been an altogether successful strategy

No? Celtic Tiger?

jeckel wrote: »

what exactly do you guys think should be liberalised?

Perhaps a better question is what we think shouldn't be liberalized

Mario007

When i was watching the six one yesterday, the reporter started complaining about An Board Snip suggesting some agencies be merged etc. She gave the example of graffiti removing workers being forced to be laid off and replaced by people who are doing community service. Hearing her speak one would think that graffiti removing was the most important issue nowadays. What i want to say is that she went on into a rant about poor graffiti removers being laid off and that it would cause huge logistic problems to get people to supervise the people doing their community service. I mean that is just ridiculous, in my opinion, and its thanks to people thinking this way that I'm afraid most of An Board Snip wont be implemented.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you do understand what cyclical means, don't you? it's actually the consumption that comes first, people work so that they are able to consume, if consumption wasn't needed there would be no need to have the paycheck.

Demand for what? Nintendo Wiis, mobile phones, Mars Bars, and Ferraris? Did these products just drop from the heavens so that employers could begin "facilitating" demand for them?

clearly you're not overly farmiliar with the history of consumerism. someone invented those things or their predessors, someone else wanted them, the transaction was facilitated, so in effect, yes, fell from the sky.

In other words, a free-market society needs to have mechanisms to preserve law and order, and the institutions that undergird and preserve freedom. Fair enough. Can you tell me how much spending that should amount to?

less than this government spends, money is being overspent, that's hardly in doubt. that doesn't mean that the things that the money is being spent on is a bad idea. baby, meet bathwater.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

jeckel, your getting stuck with the chicken and egg. What your trying to argue is that entrepreneurs are really not that useful; or within the realms of our metaphor, we have no need for chickens to make eggs.

jeckel wrote: »

clearly you're not overly farmiliar with the history of consumerism. someone invented those things or their predessors, someone else wanted them, the transaction was facilitated, so in effect, yes, fell from the sky.

So your of the opinion that if I invent something or innovate, its not my work, it just came out of nowhere

Spiritoftheseventies

Sand wrote: »

I think we need to found a new political party. Whose with me?

how would this new political party differ from parties we already have. What would be their charter?

jeckel

turgon wrote: »

No? Celtic Tiger?

drop the ?'s and i'ld agree, there wasn't one. there was a half decent production economy made look good by an ever inflating housing bubble.

Perhaps a better question is what we think shouldn't be liberalized

answering a question with a question? you're the one pushing liberalisation, what would you want liberalised? when you start repeating the empty arguments of others and throwing around a few buzz words, you make it feel like work.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

nothing, that's just stupidity.

jeckel

turgon wrote: »

we have no need for chickens to make eggs.

no, i'm saying that the chicken and the eggs are fine, the nest that holds the eggs the chicken lays is a luxury, at best.

So your of the opinion that if I invent something or innovate, its not my work, it just came out of nowhere

no, don't put words in my mouth. i say that the innovators in production sectors are usually the employees, not the employers. the employers simply facilitate. would you disagree? can you provide examples?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

jeckel wrote: »

drop the ?'s and i'ld agree, there wasn't one.

Can I just confirm, for the sake of clarity, that you believe there was no economic boom?

jeckel wrote: »

you're the one pushing liberalisation, what would you want liberalised?

I would seek privatization of many state "assets" such as transport services, gas retailers etc etc. Myself and donegalfella disagree on the scale of privatization - I believe we should keep "networks" like gas pipes; train tracks and roads (albeit tolled) within government control (or at least local authority control) whereas donegalfella doesn't.

I would also be for the privatization of healthcare, albeit with the possibility of compulsory insurance for all.

I would seek a huge reduction in social welfare. In the long run many of the benefits - such as child benefit - which does nothing only expropriate money off those without kids to transfer it to those with - would be scrapped. This would involve a huge increase in personal responsibility. Specifically speaking about child benefit: In a perfect world the universal provision of abortion* would be introduced a year before child benefit would be scrapped for all new applicants. It would be made very clear: you want a child you pay for it.

I would be against things like governmental sports grants. If you want to set up a sports club you should attract enough members to fund it; you shouldn't expect those who dont play sports to pay for those who do.

College fees: the removal of the current situation of blanket fee paying. Go over to the UCC forum and see all the "I didnt go to college all year and I still didnt pass LOL" posts. People dont care about college because its not costing them anything. Im saying this as someone starting back to college in September so if this was introduced I would be hit. Im not too certain on the alternative. Ideally banks would provide special student loans that are paid off upon getting a career, but otherwise I might favour a government based loan system. Interest rates dependent on results (higher results = lower rates) would encourage a merit based society where hard work is - shock horror - rewarded.



*controversial, so I dont like bringing it up. Im for people to have the choice on it but if push came to shove and my girlfriend got pregnant I would probably seek an adoption instead. However that doesnt mean I want to force everyone the route I favour, and thats where I differ from a lot of people.

Spiritoftheseventies

jeckel wrote: »

no, i'm saying that the chicken and the eggs are fine, the nest that holds the eggs the chicken lays is a luxury, at best.





no, don't put words in my mouth. i say that the innovators in production sectors are usually the employees, not the employers. the employers simply facilitate. would you disagree? can you provide examples?

. i say that the innovators in production sectors are usually the employees, not the employers. the employers simply facilitate. would you disagree? can you provide examples?
Well look at someone like Bill Gates. He produced a piece of software that has provided limitless employment. I think what is at issue here is the wage differentials between Employers and employees and i think that is what causes a lot of the problems.

turgon

jeckel wrote: »

no, don't put words in my mouth.

You said

"someone invented those things or their predessors"

So, the thing was invented by someone.

"in effect, yes, fell from the sky. "

This thing you claimed had fallen from the sky. But yet you also were adamant someone had invented it.

Spiritoftheseventies

Mario007 wrote: »

When i was watching the six one yesterday, the reporter started complaining about An Board Snip suggesting some agencies be merged etc. She gave the example of graffiti removing workers being forced to be laid off and replaced by people who are doing community service. Hearing her speak one would think that graffiti removing was the most important issue nowadays. What i want to say is that she went on into a rant about poor graffiti removers being laid off and that it would cause huge logistic problems to get people to supervise the people doing their community service. I mean that is just ridiculous, in my opinion, and its thanks to people thinking this way that I'm afraid most of An Board Snip wont be implemented.

Yes thats an intereresting issue. Graffitti artists/sprayers providing employment for grafitti removers. as such should we get those who put up the graffitti to remove it themselves or leave it to the experts who are trained to do it.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i agree, i never said consumption comes first is an complete explanation of the economic system, it is however the foundation. it is better for the economy as a whole to be hard on the facilitators, who are easily replaced, than on the consumers who are irreplaceable.

Let's see—Nintendo created the Wii,

the creation and marketing of the wii was consumer driven, the console market is huge. it can largely be traced back to the 1980's in the stand alone arcade machine which was very strictly pay for play consumerism. in the immortal words, "please try again"

turgon wrote: »

Can I just confirm, for the sake of clarity, that you believe there was no economic boom?

read my post, where was i unclear? the so-called "celtic tiger" is over stated, it didn't exist. the economic boom was a half decent production economy, which is real generation of wealth, hugely augmented by the inflation of the percieved value of property, which is not real wealth, it exists solely in the mind of the observer. the actual value is the cost of the actual production materials.

the question of weather or not privatisation works is entirely down to how you place a value on a state asset. basically, it always seems to work out at cheap and ****e privatised or a bit more expencive an a bit less ****e public.

hard balance to strike, but TBH, i think you'll always get exactly what you pay for.

P. Breathnach

turgon wrote: »

Few suggest they be protected. I suggest they simply be not abused.

You mean they should be protected from what you define as abuse.

jeckel

turgon wrote: »

You said

"someone invented those things or their predessors"

So, the thing was invented by someone.

"in effect, yes, fell from the sky. "

This thing you claimed had fallen from the sky. But yet you also were adamant someone had invented it.

as far as the facilitator is concerned, it fell from the sky.

some guy invented it, the company buys it and sells it to another guy for a profit, the company just facilitate the transaction so, as far they are concerned, it might as well have fallen from the sky, it doesn't matter to them where it came from.

it's more complex than that, of course, but it boils down to the fact that there is an irreplaceable and necessary inventor, an irreplaceable and necessary consumer and an unnecessary and replaceable facilitator.

he need for the facilitator only arises due to the structure of society (banking, money, planning laws, mass transport, law, order etc.,) so they are the ones whos interest society best serves. even the briefest glance at the evolution of modern society tells us this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jeckel

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

do me a favour, talk to me about your thoughts, not some authors. your opinions are far more important and interesting than ayn rands and i really don't want to get into a debate about the intellectual excrement of a woman who has trouble spelling her own name.

Isn't it amazing how technological development just sort of happens, all on its own, without anybody really actually doing anything other than "facilitating"?

who said that nobody does anything except facilitate? the facilitators (retailers, transport, manufacturing advertising etc.) facilitate, which, while it is an essential service, has become over priced and over consuming. the individual elements of it are utterly replaceable. it needs to take more responsibility in the society than it presently does.

should i use smaller words or something, what is it that's confusing you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.