Socialism and the President

Hawkeye123

Now that the elections are over – I wish to pose a question. Who is the president of Ireland? To many the answer will be Michael D Higgins. To me, the Real President of Ireland is Mr Sean Gallagher. This is not the first time RTE have used or rather misused my licence fee to usher in their choice of candidate. In the early nineties they applied the same one-sided haranguing of Brian Lenihan Senior as they did of Sean Gallagher and for that reason I have never considered Mary Robinson to have been a legitimate President. By the same token, I do not consider Michael D Higgins to be a legitimate President.
That said - I am not trenchant in my views. Take for example President George W Bush’s first term. I do consider that election result to be legitimate but only because the real winner of the election i.e. Al Gore – said so. Similarly, I would be prepared to recognise Michael D Higgins as president if – and only if the real winner of the presidential election - Sean Gallagher says so.
Perhaps one day, we will have an election which is free of RTE rhetoric. Maybe then we will have a real president.

On a different issue, I would like to ask another question. Why should there be a limit of 5000 euro for political donations? After all big business could donate a lot more to a political party with sound economic policies. Could it be that this is in fact the reason for the 5000 euro limit – to stop big business from making donations to political parties with sound economic policies? Take the Labour Party for example (or Sinn Fein for that matter) – they by their own admission are socialists! Who in their right mind would ever give money to a socialist, certainly not anyone with an iota of economic sense and of course socialism does not make economic sense. I guess Labour are plum out of luck then – when it comes to looking for funds from big business. After all, you wouldn’t have much of a business if you didn’t have economic sense. Similarly, you wouldn’t have much of a country if you don’t have economic sense.

It is now universally accepted that Fianna Fail ruined the country and that the damage and rot happened during the Bertie Ahern era. I now make a point which I urge you to learn by heart my friends and it is this: Bertie Ahern is a socialist – if you don’t believe me ask anyone, he admitted it himself in the Dail!

Here is my take on socialism: When the devil invented it, he split humanity right down the middle. Goodness, kindness and charity must be encouraged not extracted. Wealth should be shared voluntarily – this should be inspired but not enforced. Giving requires responsibility, to give without responsibility propagates famine in the third world and breeds a culture of entitlement in the first. It is easy to distribute money and wealth you take from others – but not so easy if you have to earn it with the sweat of your brow. I beg all who read this to examine your conscience. Work is the physical manifestation of love – do it with a smile on your face. Maybe then the wealthy will be inspired to give more on their own volition and not send their wealth abroad to protect it from being squandered by incompetent and irresponsible socialists. The wealthy do respond to inspiration unlike socialists who respond with jealousy to the wealth of others. My friends - do not criticise without understanding. If you seek to understand the wealthy you may find it a truly worthwhile endeavour and perhaps you will learn a new appreciation towards those who build the companies that provide the jobs that feed your children and fund the state and raise the revenue to repay the debt that socialists incurred while failing to run the economy that is funded by the companies that were built from nothing by those the rich who the socialists tax and hate while these same socialists join the unions which run the public sector which is paid for by the private sector etc etc etc

You get the adea.

oscarBravo

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

I would be prepared to recognise Michael D Higgins as president if... Sean Gallagher says so.

He already has.

RichieC

Try as you might, you wont turn socialism into a dirty word in this country.

Micheal D has done more good for this country than this failed dodgy business man you seem to think is owed the Aras.

Gay mitchells shockingly bad showing and Micheal D's triumph to me is a repudiation of right wing politics in Ireland.

cianisgood

I think we need a capitalistic economy to survive but that does mean you can't have a socialistic society were you treat everyone you meet as an equal

Manach

The cost of the welfare-socialist entitlement state has bankrupt this country, finishing off what the welfare-capitalist bail-out of the banks started.

Hawkeye123

Manach wrote: »

The cost of the welfare-socialist entitlement state has bankrupt this country, finishing off what the welfare-capitalist bail-out of the banks started.

You are correct. All bail outs are bad policy, be they for banks, countries or individuals. I don`t blame Anglo - why should I - they did not land me with their debt, the government did. The public sector regulator failed like a soviet Lada.

ei.sdraob

cianisgood wrote: »

I think we need a capitalistic economy to survive but that does mean you can't have a socialistic society were you treat everyone you meet as an equal

Socialism bring equality alright, everyone being equally poor (except the 1% elite party members :P)

cianisgood

some of the best/happiest countries to live in are the ones with socialist ideals such as Sweden , Canada , Norway and Australia

matthew8

cianisgood wrote: »

some of the best/happiest countries to live in are the ones with socialist ideals such as Sweden , Canada , Norway and Australia

I never knew Canada and Australia were socialists.

CrystalLettuce

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Socialism bring equality alright, everyone being equally poor (except the 1% elite party members :P)

That's not what socialism is. Just because failed attempts at socialism may result in that does not make it so. Libertarians are all too quick to reject corporate welfare, etc., when that's likely to be an eventual result of having such a corporate dominated society anyway. At least with this "socialism" you can point to flaws that were there in the get go.

matthew8

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's not what socialism is. Just because failed attempts at socialism may result in that does not make it so. Libertarians are all too quick to reject corporate welfare, etc., when that's likely to be an eventual result of having such a corporate dominated society anyway. At least with this "socialism" you can point to flaws that were there in the get go.

Well here's the thing, if the government is powerless economically and only has enough money to run itself and put thieves, murderers and rapists in jail, it won't be able to carry out corporate welfare.

CrystalLettuce

matthew8 wrote: »

Well here's the thing, if the government is powerless economically and only has enough money to run itself and put thieves, murderers and rapists in jail, it won't be able to carry out corporate welfare.

That's assuming that the system stays static and corporate agenda doesn't eventually lead to raised taxes which are siphoned solely into corporate interest, or that money to run itself and the police services doesn't end up in there's - we're already cutting back in such things to bail out banks.

I also like how libertarians want to be protected from thieves and murderers but don't want disadvantaged and disabled people being protected from being thrown out to die on the streets.

It is really a sociopathic ideology. And also why it's inconsistent and doesn't work.

matthew8

That's assuming that the system stays static and corporate agenda doesn't eventually lead to raised taxes which are siphoned solely into corporate interest, or that money to run itself and the police services doesn't end up in there's - we're already cutting back in such things to bail out banks.

Well we'll just have to wait and see about that if we get a sniff of power.

I also like how libertarians want to be protected from thieves and murderers but don't want disadvantaged and disabled people being protected from being thrown out to die on the streets.

Well if they're being thrown out to die on streets they were probably being thrown out of houses that were given to them by the people who threw them out.

This is a thread about socialism and the president. I have no problem with the prez being socialist and I don't see why anyone would, or why anyone would care.

Also, why are you turning every thread on this forum into one about libertarianism?

WalterMitty

How much in pensions will Micheal D be getting if he only does one term in office? He will be "entitled" to a TD pension,Old age pension,Academic pension, ministerial pension, presidential pension. Am i missing any? He'll be getting probably 200k or more a year(!) AFTER leaving office in 7 years. Socialism sure is great for some people. MAkes ya wonder how the Sinn Fein people can survive on average industrial wage.

CrystalLettuce

matthew8 wrote: »

Well we'll just have to wait and see about that if we get a sniff of power.

Well if they're being thrown out to die on streets they were probably being thrown out of houses that were given to them by the people who threw them out.

And that somehow justifies favouring a system where more people, especially members of marginalised groups, suffer and die?

It's this "Well technically, this is why this happened" BS that I can't get over with Libertarians. It doesn't matter. When you trace the origins of everything you'll probably find that everyone is where they are at least partially because of someone else. Treating property rights or really anything as one absolute that must come before everything else makes for a very simplistic system.

ei.sdraob

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

That's not what socialism is. Just because failed attempts at socialism may result in that does not make it so. Libertarians are all too quick to reject corporate welfare, etc., when that's likely to be an eventual result of having such a corporate dominated society anyway. At least with this "socialism" you can point to flaws that were there in the get go.

How many failed attempts, failed states, dead people and destroyed lives would it take for you to come over to the dark side young Lettuce?

Victor

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Who is the president of Ireland?

Mary McAleese. Higgins is only president-elect.

Why should there be a limit of 5000 euro for political donations? After all big business could donate a lot more to a political party with sound economic policies.

Cynical answer - so the money goes directly to the likes of Bertie. Actual answer - to stop businesses skewing politics. Ans so they can't donate to a political party with unsound economic policies.

Wealth should be shared voluntarily – this should be inspired but not enforced. Giving requires responsibility, to give without responsibility propagates famine in the third world and breeds a culture of entitlement in the first. It is easy to distribute money and wealth you take from others – but not so easy if you have to earn it with the sweat of your brow.

I saw the film "The Help" yesterday. While the manifestation of racism, bigotry, etc. may have changed, the power balance hasn't really.

cianisgood

matthew8 wrote: »

I never knew Canada and Australia were socialists.

Free health care. High taxes that go back to the people . And huge public school systems.

I said socialist ideals not socialists

Hawkeye123

Victor wrote: »

Mary McAleese. Higgins is only president-elect.

Cynical answer - so the money goes directly to the likes of Bertie. Actual answer - to stop businesses skewing politics.

Hi Victor,
I was wondering which smart a**e would mention this true but irrelevant point

You are correct also in identifying corruption as a reason behind the 5000 euro limit but that is because of the client-ism aspect of our political system. Strictly speaking it should be illegal for someone to promise to vote for a particular politician in return for a favour. Elected representatives are supposed to represent everyone so a system has to be found so that politicians are not directly at the mercy of their local constituents. One way would be for folks in Louth to elect politicians in Kerry and the Kerry people could vote for politicians based in Laois.

The 5000 euro limit to political donations causes more corruption than it solves. Here is an example, - suppose you were a politician and you believed in the need for austerity. What would happen in the event that a hospital in your constituency were proposed for closure? You could remain true to your beliefs and lose your seat at the next election or you could do the populist thing which is essentially the same as accepting a bribe in the form of votes.

If the 5000 euro limit were done away with you could compete for the contract to run Ireland Inc in much the same way as McDonalds competes with other fast food restaurants to sell hamburgers. You could for example say to the electorate - If you give me this contract, I will not take a salary (the donations would cover it). Competition must be facilitated and not stifled. What do you think would happen if a state monopoly ran the supermarkets? Here`s what: The product range would collapse to one or two items eg nappies and tins of spam. Queues of people would stand at each check-out for hours at a time. Food riots would hit the streets within weeks and a major famine within five years. These events were the norm in the former Soviet Union yet the Labour Party insist on keeping our Health Service monopolised in the hands of their Unionised Public Sector fat cat oligarchs at the tax payers expense. Left wing types constantly moan about our sham-bolic health service while deriding any attempt to privatise it. I marvel at their short-sightedness.

RussellTuring

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

If the 5000 euro limit were done away with you could compete for the contract to run Ireland Inc in much the same way as McDonalds competes with other fast food restaurants to sell hamburgers.

I'd rather society wasn't organised and run like a McDonald's outlet. No matter how successful the company may be at what it does, I don't think anyone would try to argue that it provides the best-quality products.

Hawkeye123

RussellTuring wrote: »

No matter how successful the company may be at what it does,

Success matters - this is the point I was making. Burgers & chips are not really pertinent.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Success matters - this is the point I was making. Burgers & chips are not really pertinent.

Thats just crazy.
Define "success" in the running of a country.

RussellTuring

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Success matters - this is the point I was making. Burgers & chips are not really pertinent.

I take it from this you either didn't get my point or chose to ignore it. The scale at which you're able to do something doesn't necessarily correlate to its desirability or positive influence on the world.

Hawkeye123

RussellTuring wrote: »

I take it from this you either didn't get my point or chose to ignore it. The scale at which you're able to do something doesn't necessarily correlate to its desirability or positive influence on the world.

True but it is desirable to run Ireland Inc in an efficient, cost effective and competitive way. This is why MacDonald`s are successful in the fast food business - efficiency, cost effectiveness and competitiveness.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

True but it is desirable to run Ireland Inc in an efficient, cost effective and competitive way. This is why MacDonald`s are successful in the fast food business - efficiency, cost effectiveness and competitiveness.

(not sure why this thread was re-invigorated but I feel this needs to be addressed)
Comparing the running of a multinational organisation with the running of a country (who usually only have one goal) is rather foolish.

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

Thats just crazy.
Define "success" in the running of a country.

Hello Kippy. To be successful, a country must consistently governed in the following way:
1. Within its means
2. Competitively
3. Responsibly

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

(not sure why this thread was re-invigorated but I feel this needs to be addressed)
Comparing the running of a multinational organisation with the running of a country (who usually only have one goal) is rather foolish.

Hi again Kippy, I assume you are referring to the multinational organisations profit orientated ethos. If that is an issue, it shouldn`t be - unless of course we happen to be jealous of the success of others. It is very important that we leave our jealousy aside Kippy and focus on the need for an efficient and cost effective way of running the country.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Hello Kippy. To be successful, a country must consistently governed in the following way:
1. Within its means
2. Competitively
3. Responsibly

What is the aim of a business?

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

What is the aim of a business?

Hi Kippy. The aim of a business is to make money. Money is fairly handy stuff if you want to do good things for others. This is why it is important to run a country in a business like manner - when the country makes money it can invest it or spend it in a way which will benefit the citizens.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Hi Kippy. The aim of a business is to make money. Money is fairly handy stuff if you want to do good things for others. This is why it is important to run a country in a business like manner - when the country makes money it can invest it or spend it in a way which will benefit the citizens.

So the aim of a country is to make money?

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

So the aim of a country is to make money?

As a means to an end? Yes.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

As a means to an end? Yes.

Why pay social welfare then?

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

Why pay social welfare then?

Social welfare should not be paid for doing nothing. It should be earned. There is nothing kinder than giving work to the unemployed and there is nothing more wicked than to reward slothfulness with free handouts.

kippy

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Social welfare should not be paid for doing nothing. It should be earned. There is nothing kinder than giving work to the unemployed and there is nothing more wicked than to reward slothfulness with free handouts.

Pensions, Careers allowance, long term sick, why pay any of those?

Lockstep

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Social welfare should not be paid for doing nothing. It should be earned. There is nothing kinder than giving work to the unemployed and there is nothing more wicked than to reward slothfulness with free handouts.

Are you saying you want a Famine Road policy?

Kinski

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Social welfare should not be paid for doing nothing. It should be earned. There is nothing kinder than giving work to the unemployed and there is nothing more wicked than to reward slothfulness with free handouts.

You want to turn the social welfare system into a government jobs programme? Sounds like socialism to me...:pac:

Hawkeye123

Lockstep wrote: »

Are you saying you want a Famine Road policy?

The Famine road policy was about ethnic cleansing and building infrastructure for an occupying empire - food was the inducement. This line of thinking may explain why we are cursed with socialists in this country. All I am suggesting is that we recognize that we have to compete with hard working people in other parts of the world. We can choose to ignore the competitive forces out in the real world and hope outsiders will continue lending to us indefinitely and then forgive us our debts. Alternatively, we can assume the worst possible scenario and prepare for it in advance. The latter option would be the more prudent.

Hawkeye123

kippy wrote: »

Pensions, Careers allowance, long term sick, why pay any of those?

Because they are necessary - but those liabilities should be set a a level that would ensure that at the end of the fiscal year Ireland Inc still returns a profit. The profit could then be used for more worthy ventures.

Hawkeye123

Kinski wrote: »

You want to turn the social welfare system into a government jobs programme? Sounds like socialism to me...:pac:

Yes but it would be a less-bad form of socialism than the give-for-nothing type we have at the moment.

Nitochris

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Famine road policy was about ethnic cleansing and building infrastructure for an occupying empire - food was the inducement.

The Famine Roads were part of the public works policy which were a policy with the aim of encouraging "habits of self-reliance", "work ethic" and "moral reform" (see Nally's Human Encumbrances table 4.1 p.164).
Which as Lockstep pointed out sounds like:

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

Social welfare should not be paid for doing nothing. It should be earned. There is nothing kinder than giving work to the unemployed and there is nothing more wicked than to reward slothfulness with free handouts.

Lockstep

Hawkeye123 wrote: »

The Famine road policy was about ethnic cleansing and building infrastructure for an occupying empire - food was the inducement. This line of thinking may explain why we are cursed with socialists in this country. All I am suggesting is that we recognize that we have to compete with hard working people in other parts of the world. We can choose to ignore the competitive forces out in the real world and hope outsiders will continue lending to us indefinitely and then forgive us our debts. Alternatively, we can assume the worst possible scenario and prepare for it in advance. The latter option would be the more prudent.

Oh please. The Famine was a result of economic mismanagement and a mix of protectionist causes and laissez-faire solutions (the worst of both worlds) It was no planned ethnic cleansing. Leave that chest-thumping nationalism to the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Have you ever seen the places where famine roads were built? A lot of them are out in the middle of nowhere as the government wanted to make people do work (any work) before they'd give them any cash. Which sounds like what you're suggesting.

Hawkeye123

Nitochris wrote: »

The Famine Roads were part of the public works policy which were a policy with the aim of encouraging "habits of self-reliance", "work ethic" and "moral reform" (see Nally's Human Encumbrances table 4.1 p.164).
Which as Lockstep pointed out sounds like:

The difference is that we are no longer slaves to a foreign occupier. The reason I suggest we work hard is so that future generations will not have to pick up the tab for the vulgar excess of the celtic tiger years. You may recall people taking several holidays every year, fetishes for designer goods and so forth. Little children being born today will suffer because of our greed and squandering and borrowing. We have a moral responsibility to make amends for the past.