Have we, as a people, failed the Republic?

Amhran Nua

meglome wrote: »

People who even when caught lying and cheating were re-elected in the first count.

Thats exactly the point. While the TD that brought in free third level education promptly lost her seat. Putting these two together you come up with two possibilities: either a) the entire electorate is insane, or b) you haven't got the full picture.

As is usually the case when it appears you are the sole voice of sanity and everyone else seems crazy, option b) is the correct one. Or to put it another way, once you remove the impossible, whatever remains must be the reality. This is the reality that has just been described to you.

Our approach to politics and politicians is the result of the STV system.

Eliot Rosewater

Amhran Nua wrote: »

He offered some anecdotes of his apparently miserable childhood with a generous helping of vitrilolic and prejuidiced bile. End of.

His criticisms are legitimate, you're just trying to brush them under the carpet with sensationalist descriptions. With reference to today, the shifting of responsibility elsewhere is extremely common. How often have we heard "the bankers are getting their bailout, why can't we...."? Or, "the bank forced me to take out a 110% mortgage".

20Cent wrote: »

Telling your da that he is paid too much over the dinner table isn't really a demonstration of being willing to deal with it

Okay, what do you suggest I do? I'm a student, I'm receiving no grants or government subsidies (besides fees, of course). All I can do is vocalise my concerns (which I do a lot! ).

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Oho I missed this bit. Is this the same Constantin Gurdgiev who's always complaining about being in negative equity on his blog,

Constantin Gurdgiev is a very uncommon name in Ireland, so, yes, presumably.

I was commenting on his vocal stance on RTE and in the papers in support of large budget cutbacks, including the "tearing up" of the Croke Park Deal. Are you suggesting he isn't vocal about this? (That was my original claim.)

20Cent

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Okay, what do you suggest I do? I'm a student, I'm receiving no grants or government subsidies (besides fees, of course). All I can do is vocalise my concerns (which I do a lot! ).

My point was that its easy to talk about sacrifice etc when you don't have much to sacrifice.

Amhran Nua

Sand wrote: »

And whatever his own personal situation

He's caught with his trousers down on this one I'm afraid, and I admit without shame to a pinch of schadenfreude at the sight of a man who has made it his life's work to promote a system that weakens state support for the poor coming back hat in hand to the taxpayer. Even the article admits it, albeit in a downplayed fashion:

This will increase the interest burden on the taxpayer, or in the end perhaps on the ECB but we argue that, in the overall socioeconomic context, debt forgiveness to the maximum feasible extent is a first step to restoring the economy and society.

He should be handing in his libertarian card around now, I reckon.

Sand wrote: »

But the idea of a Victorian bankruptcy where people are nailed to a cross and flogged through the streets with a sign around their neck isnt going to do anything other than delay the inevitable.

Agreed, in particular with reference to enterprise bankruptcy. harsh bankruptcy laws are a double edged sword - if most new businesses require tens of thousands of euros to get started, and probably fail, who would want to take that risk? It stunts new enterprise, something we badly need.

Amhran Nua

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

His criticisms are legitimate

No, they aren't, they are exactly as I described them - anecdotes backed up by a bellyful of bile, like someone who was taking their knowledge of Irish society from the caricatures on Hollyoaks and Eastenders.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I was commenting on his vocal stance on RTE and in the papers in support of large budget cutbacks

Sure, according to Constantin we can cut back services and use the savings to pay for his mortgage.

Sand

Constantin Gurdigiev could simply default on his mortgage and rent. Hed lose the house, but hes going to lose that under any reasonable bargain. Thats his own lookout.

What he is arguing for is a systematic approach to a systematic problem. And when I say "he", I refer to the use of the word "we" in the quote youve cited. Hes doing so as part of a larger group - I doubt theyre hinging their argument on the personal interest of Constantin Gurdigiev.

Amhran Nua

Sand wrote: »

Constantin Gurdigiev could simply default on his mortgage and rent. Hed lose the house, but hes going to lose that under any reasonable bargain.

On the contrary, the bargain he's angling for would mean he just didn't pay his contractual debts. This is what debt forgiveness means. The inevitable result would be that we, the taxpayers, would end up paying them for him. I have no idea how this departure from the libertarian dogma he espouses can be defended by anyone with a similar perspective. It's a complete and utter failure, philosophically, there's no way around it.

Sand wrote: »

What he is arguing for is a systematic approach to a systematic problem. And when I say "he", I refer to the use of the word "we" in the quote youve cited. Hes doing so as part of a larger group - I doubt theyre hinging their argument on the personal interest of Constantin Gurdigiev.

His name is on the dotted line looking for a taxpayer bailout for his personal decisions. Although I'd be interested to know the financial state of the rest, I know Lucey was flying a kite for this previously also.

SkepticOne

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

In my defence I didn't say everyone else, I said "most people". To clarify, it seems to me that the majority of the population is simply unwilling to deal with the economic crisis.

So it is not just you. There are others who are not responsible. Who are they? It is not "the public" that are to blame is it? It is specific groups with varying degrees of responsibility. Blame is not shared among the public equally.