Would you consider voting a Majority Fianna fail for the next government?

Anynama141

darkhorse wrote: »

Except if yer black, maybe.

That's a rather low accusation to throw around DH. It's a disgusting thing to be and I wouldn't throw it at my worst enemy without being quite sure about it. I know you've had a few drinks, but having read some of your posts in the long term illness thread I expected better of you.

MilanPan!c

Anynama141 wrote: »

That's a rather low accusation to throw around DH. It's a disgusting thing to be and I wouldn't throw it at my worst enemy without being quite sure about it. I know you've had a few drinks, but having read some of your posts in the long term illness thread I expected better of you.

Expecting honesty out of darkhorse at this point is kinda a "shame on you" thing...

Cody Pomeray

MilanPan!c wrote: »

As far as you thinking that bad policies are grand, as long as they're popular, can I refer to a little known Irish phenomena known as the "Celtic Tiger".

First of all, who gets to decide what "bad policy" is?

All we have is our own opinion. I think we need more ideology and less short term populism in governance. To get back to what I said, and you may have misinterpreted, democracy must enable the public to collectively determine, or preserve, what they see as their long term interests.

Why 'long term interests'? Because the public are the the Board of Governers of the state who delegate day-to-day management to the executive board (The Government and the European Union).

It is very important for a public to set out what their broad long term objectives are, such as preservation of a specific culture by being anti-immigration, or choosing individualist economic policy, or by making abortion illegal except where there is a substantial risk to the life of a mother. These are all legitimate policy objectives that reflect a nation's long term objectives for the kind of society they want to make together.

We sometimes assume that the availability of ideas in the free market of democracy will ensure that long term goals will be what we personally, individually, consider attractive, but it may not always be so. So be it. You don't get to dictate what is objectively good or objectively bad.

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Why is this a good thing?

What if they did the opposite because it was the right thing to do?

And what if the candidate you replaced them with was much worse?

Recall them?

It's a silly idea.

theres a million whatifs on both sides of argument, but those aside, how can anyone say its a silly idea to fire an employee that isnt performing, doing their job, lying to you or downright stealing from you? have you ever run a business?
The only person that would decry that is a bad employee.

Recall is true democracy.

wouldnt you like to recall Mick Wallace? if gilroy got in dont you want a chance to get rid of him when he does something like stick a freeman sign on the dail bar?

good politicians should be shouting for recall to get rid of the bad apples.

MilanPan!c

bgrizzley wrote: »

theres a million whatifs on both sides of argument, but those aside, how can anyone say its a silly idea to fire an employee that isnt performing, doing their job, lying to you or downright stealing from you? have you ever run a business?
The only person that would decry that is a bad employee.

Recall is true democracy.

wouldnt you like to recall Mick Wallace? if gilroy got in dont you want a chance to get rid of him when he does something like stick a freeman sign on the dail bar?

good politicians should be shouting for recall to get rid of the bad apples.

Recall isn't "true democracy".

The US has recall elections and no one there seems to be hugely enthralled with the results.

Claiming a sooner election (that's all it is, btw.) is any more democratic then simply waiting a few months is nonsense.

I also know you think all politicians are crooks, so who are these "good politicians" you're suddenly enamoured with?

MilanPan!c

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

First of all, who gets to decide what "bad policy" is?

All we have is our own opinion. I think we need more ideology and less short term populism in governance. To get back to what I said, and you may have misinterpreted, democracy must enable the public to collectively determine, or preserve, what they see as their long term interests.

Why 'long term interests'? Because the public are the the Board of Governers of the state who delegate day-to-day management to the executive board (The Government and the European Union).

It is very important for a public to set out what their broad long term objectives are, such as preservation of a specific culture by being anti-immigration, or choosing individualist economic policy, or by making abortion illegal except where there is a substantial risk to the life of a mother. These are all legitimate policy objectives that reflect a nation's long term objectives for the kind of society they want to make together.

We sometimes assume that the availability of ideas in the free market of democracy will ensure that long term goals will be what we personally, individually, consider attractive, but it may not always be so. So be it. You don't get to dictate what is objectively good or objectively bad.

I hate to break it to you, but the public can't ACTUALLY set out long term objectives... mostly because the "public" can't agree on most of them.

The idea that this can be done with DD is nonsense.

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Recall isn't "true democracy".

in your opinion. IMO democracy is following what the voters want whether they are wrong or right. Majority rules, not the Elite deciding for them.

The US has recall elections and no one there seems to be hugely enthralled with the results.

who wasnt enthralled? the recalled politician? the media?
the voters who recalled him?

Claiming a sooner election (that's all it is, btw.) is any more democratic then simply waiting a few months is nonsense.

FG/labour had broken promises within months of gettting in. 4 years is a lot longer than a few months. Recall may have sharpened the mind and they might have been more inclined to hold back those "Red Cents"

I also know you think all politicians are crooks, so who are these "good politicians" you're suddenly enamoured with?

this is your second time saying this, i cant remember calling all politicians crooks, can you point me to the post?

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but the public can't ACTUALLY set out long term objectives... mostly because the "public" can't agree on most of them.

The idea that this can be done with DD is nonsense.

if this is what you believe you should be campaigning to get rid of democracy altogether.

Cody Pomeray

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but the public can't ACTUALLY set out long term objectives... mostly because the "public" can't agree on most of them.

Who suggested a unanimous vote was needed? i certainly didn't.

The fact that the public doesn't unanimously agree is irrelevant to democracy. Democracy, taken at its most literal, means mob rule.

It is important that people we who just woke up one day and found ourselves on this island, or took a plane and came to live and contribute here, get to decide how this place is run in terms of long term policy objectives.

So again I'll ask you - maybe this time you'll answer - who do you say gets to decide what bad long term policy objectives are? Take immigration - who gets to decide anti immigration policies are "bad"?

MilanPan!c

bgrizzley wrote: »

if this is what you believe you should be campaigning to get rid of democracy altogether.

That's nonsense. Tell me the last set of long term policies that the populas gave to government to implement.

MilanPan!c

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Who suggested a unanimous vote was needed? i certainly didn't.

The fact that the public doesn't unanimously agree is irrelevant to democracy. Democracy, taken at its most literal, means mob rule.

It is important that people we who just woke up one day and found ourselves on this island, or took a plane and came to live and contribute here, get to decide how this place is run in terms of long term policy objectives.

So again I'll ask you - maybe this time you'll answer - who do you say gets to decide what bad long term policy objectives are? Take immigration - who gets to decide anti immigration policies are "bad"?

People get to choose representatives. The representatives get to decide. If they don't like their decisions, they can always vote out the representatives.

MilanPan!c

bgrizzley wrote: »

in your opinion. IMO democracy is following what the voters want whether they are wrong or right. Majority rules, not the Elite deciding for them.

who wasnt enthralled? the recalled politician? the media?
the voters who recalled him?
FG/labour had broken promises within months of gettting in. 4 years is a lot longer than a few months. Recall may have sharpened the mind and they might have been more inclined to hold back those "Red Cents"
this is your second time saying this, i cant remember calling all politicians crooks, can you point me to the post?

You have repeatedly referred to corrupt politicians and said, " i dislike all politicians equally".

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That's nonsense. Tell me the last set of long term policies that the populas gave to government to implement.

maybe if we had DD.... :P

"mostly because the "public" can't agree on most of them"

in general do you think the populace should be allowed vote on complex issues? or should the ruling elite decide?

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You have repeatedly referred to corrupt politicians and said, " i dislike all politicians equally".

true, but thats not calling all of them crooks...

MilanPan!c

bgrizzley wrote: »

maybe if we had DD....

"mostly because the "public" can't agree on most of them"

in general do you think the populace should be allowed vote on complex issues? or should the ruling elite decide?

Here, do you think the populas will ACTUALLY vote on everything under DD?

It certainly hasn't happened like that in every other DD. No point in setting up a false choice.

Do I think they should have more say, as in the occasional referendum, maybe, but that's not because I dislike the "people" any more than you do... you think that people can't be trusted to vote for decent politicians, why would you trust them to vote for decent policies?

MilanPan!c

bgrizzley wrote: »

true, but thats not calling all of them crooks...

You think there's some good ones, you just dislike them... sorry, for misrepresenting your dislike for good politicians.

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Here, do you think the populas will ACTUALLY vote on everything under DD?

It certainly hasn't happened like that in every other DD. No point in setting up a false choice.

i dont, i think we will have the same voting patterns as we do for GE or referenda now and we will still have the same small overall number of people deciding for the whole country. but thats the voters fault, if they dont think something is important enough to vote on its their loss.

Do I think they should have more say, as in the occasional referendum, maybe, but that's not because I dislike the "people" any more than you do... you think that people can't be trusted to vote for decent politicians, why would you trust them to vote for decent policies?

i dont know whether they will vote for decent policies, but it will be true democracy., the voters deciding policies for better or worse, not some fat greedy party politician who will vote himself a wage increase before a childs rights.

bgrizzley

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You think there's some good ones, you just dislike them... sorry, for misrepresenting your dislike for good politicians.

the default opinion is dislike, until they prove otherwise.(and im still wary even at that)

Cody Pomeray

MilanPan!c wrote: »

People get to choose representatives. The representatives get to decide. If they don't like their decisions, they can always vote out the representatives.

That's really not answering my question.

Individuals are encouraged to vote on policy. (If they don't that's fine).

If a man votes for a candidate with long term policy objectives of seeking...

-to preserve the "dignity of human life", e.g. ban abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide
-to preserve the "cultural heritage" of the existing population, e.g. to ban Islamic clothing, limit immigration from specific regions
-to preserve the identity of the family e.g. ban gay marriage and adoption

...Then that man is channelling the candidate whom he hopes shall make the most compatible statement about his preferred long term policy objectives, based on the man's personal worldview.

Say that gives rise to an anti immigration policy.

Is that anti immigration policy still "a bad policy"?
(That's not a rhetorical question)

Policies are only "bad" insofar as they diminish the public's long term objectives. They are only bad if they fly in the face of the kind of society the majority of people want, the kind of values they hold.

If I want to preserve local cultural heritage, I might say that anti-gay-marriage laws are "good policy"
If I want to culture to be more open and malleable, I might say that anti immigration laws are "bad policy".

So when you said earlier, that direct democracy led to bad policies in Switzerland, citing anti-immigration policy, I want to know on what basis you were saying that was a bad policy.
(that's also not a rhetorical question).

Disclaimer: I personally fhave extreme views in favour of immigration and citizenship, so I'm not anti immigration in the least. However, I can see that just because I hold these views, it doesn't make the anti immigration policy objectively "bad".

tayto lover

Podge_irl wrote: »

There are plenty of valid reasons to take issue with the way FG have run the country in the last two years.

However, it utterly baffles me that anyone thinks there is a single party or person that could have negotiated the last two years in government without instigating any cuts or austerity. We let FF run this country into the ground for 30 years and yet somehow blame FG and Lab for not completely fixing the problem painlessly in two years.

I actually agree to a point BUT it would have been nice to see the pain spread evenly.
The middle income earner, the poor and the sick seem to be suffering more than the rich, the politicians and the people who got us where we are.

Anynama141

tayto lover wrote: »

I actually agree to a point BUT it would have been nice to see the pain spread evenly.
The middle income earner, the poor and the sick seem to be suffering more than the rich, the politicians and the people who got us where we are.

I'd say that the poor and the pensioners have gotten off pretty lightly - pensions not touched, core social welfare almost untouched - but the folks who go out to work at all have been hit, and some hit quite hard.

Here's an interesting graph on the subject. As you can see, our tax system is pretty progressive still. And in this graph you can see that about 35% of the population pays no (income) tax at all.

The graphs are from this thread on ThePropertyPin.

MilanPan!c

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's really not answering my question.

Individuals are encouraged to vote on policy. (If they don't that's fine).

If a man votes for a candidate with long term policy objectives of seeking...

-to preserve the "dignity of human life", e.g. ban abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide
-to preserve the "cultural heritage" of the existing population, e.g. to ban Islamic clothing, limit immigration from specific regions
-to preserve the identity of the family e.g. ban gay marriage and adoption

...Then that man is channelling the candidate whom he hopes shall make the most compatible statement about his preferred long term policy objectives, based on the man's personal worldview.

Say that gives rise to an anti immigration policy.

Is that anti immigration policy still "a bad policy"?
(That's not a rhetorical question)

Policies are only "bad" insofar as they diminish the public's long term objectives. They are only bad if they fly in the face of the kind of society the majority of people want, the kind of values they hold.

If I want to preserve local cultural heritage, I might say that anti-gay-marriage laws are "good policy"
If I want to culture to be more open and malleable, I might say that anti immigration laws are "bad policy".

So when you said earlier, that direct democracy led to bad policies in Switzerland, citing anti-immigration policy, I want to know on what basis you were saying that was a bad policy.
(that's also not a rhetorical question).

Disclaimer: I personally fhave extreme views in favour of immigration and citizenship, so I'm not anti immigration in the least. However, I can see that just because I hold these views, it doesn't make the anti immigration policy objectively "bad".

Bad as in what?

Bad for the economy?

Morally wrong?

Illegal?

tayto lover

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'd say that the poor and the pensioners have gotten off pretty lightly - pensions not touched, core social welfare almost untouched - but the folks who go out to work at all have been hit, and some hit quite hard.

Here's an interesting graph on the subject. As you can see, our tax system is pretty progressive still. And in this graph you can see that about 35% of the population pays no (income) tax at all.

The graphs are from this thread on ThePropertyPin.

The pensioners have been hit with fuel allowance cuts, prescription charges, e.s.b. cuts and travel charges on the cards.
The poor with back to school grant cuts, child allowance cuts, communion grants from the top of my head.
Your graphs are interesting though. I must examine them more deeply. Cheers.

Cody Pomeray

Anynama141 wrote: »

I'd say that the poor and the pensioners have gotten off pretty lightly - pensions not touched, core social welfare almost untouched - but the folks who go out to work at all have been hit, and some hit quite hard.

Here's an interesting graph on the subject. As you can see, our tax system is pretty progressive still.

3 points to mention.

1. To an individual, a tax cut is effectively the same as a drop in payment, or the reduction or even removal of a transfer benefit.

So we don't judge progressivity of budgets on tax paid alone. That would be foolish and would always give you the impression that the processes are progressive (since we have horizontal and vertical equity in Irish tax policy)

Instead you take the full range of measures which affect household incomes into account.

2. While they may not pay income tax, it is wrong to say 35% of people pay no taxes. You can be ineligible for income tax, and still have to pay VAT, duties on goods, excise, property taxes, stamp duty, PRSI, USC, and so on. Many of these taxes are less progressive so fall on the low paid harder than others (e.g. vat, property tax)
Nobody can realistically get away with avoiding tax.

3. On progressivity:

There is more updated information by now.

The 2013 Budget was not as progressive as previous crisis budgets. Compare the blue consolidations to the red consolidations.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/somnp5.jpg

Cody Pomeray

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Bad as in what?

Bad for the economy?

Morally wrong?

Illegal?

You indicated that Swiss anti immigration law was bad, and it came about as a result of direct democracy.

I asked you (among other things you didn't answer) why it was "bad"?

Greentopia

Getting back to the original question-no, I would not and will not ever vote for FF in any election. They are IMO irredeemably corrupt, incompetent, self-serving and populist.
If this was a fully functional democracy they would have been consigned to the history books after what they have done to this country.

The fact that they are high in the opinion polls after such a short time and we see even here in this poll that 162 people would consider voting for them again makes me feel sick to my stomach; and I can only conclude that if they ever do get enough votes to gain power again there is no hope whatsoever for the future of representative politics in this country.

Anynama141

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

3 points to mention.

1. To an individual, a tax cut is effectively the same as a drop in payment, or the reduction or even removal of a transfer benefit.

So we don't judge progressivity of budgets on tax paid alone. That would be foolish and would always give you the impression that the processes are progressive (since we have horizontal and vertical equity in Irish tax policy)

Instead you take the full range of measures which affect household incomes into account.

Indeed. And yet we still have - I believe - the second most progressive tax system in the OECD?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

2. While they may not pay income tax, it is wrong to say 35% of people pay no taxes.

Yes, this is why I said they pay no INCOME tax, not that they pay not tax...:rolleyes: (it's in the line you edited out of your reply for some reason)

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

3. On progressivity:

There is more updated information by now.

The 2013 Budget was not as progressive as previous crisis budgets. Compare the blue consolidations to the red consolidations.
http://oi50.tinypic.com/somnp5.jpg

And in conclusion, who do you feel is bearing the brunt of the current fiscal adjustments?

Anynama141

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You indicated that Swiss anti immigration law was bad, and it came about as a result of direct democracy.

I asked you (among other things you didn't answer) why it was "bad"?

Why were the NAZI racial purity laws "bad"?

Cody Pomeray

Anynama141 wrote: »

Indeed. And yet we still have - I believe - the second most progressive tax system in the OECD?

I'm not sure if we're actually the most progressive but we do pretty well just on income tax.

Yes, this is why I said they pay no INCOME tax, not that they pay not tax...:rolleyes: (it's in the line you edited out of your reply for some reason)

I edited my post about an hour-and-a-half before you replied. I am aware you were not referring to all taxes, but I am conscious of the fact that the income tax figures give a false impression of progressivity.

Think about it. It really doesn't matter to a family whether the extra money they lose every month is titled USC or Income Tax.
It all comes out of the same packet and it all goes into the same pot. making a distinction is little more than a political device; a rose by another name.

And in conclusion, who do you feel is bearing the brunt of the current fiscal adjustments?

In terms of the tangible fiscal measures, there's no doubt that these were progressive under the 3 Fianna Fáil budgets, and that the last two budgets have shown problems with being more regressive for the lowest income deciles, which is a worrying pattern considering that further regressive measures such as water charges are to be introduced.

Anynama141 wrote: »

Why were the NAZI racial purity laws "bad"?

To be clear, we are each entitled to our own personal worldview.

Personally, mine is that the Nuremburg Laws were bad, of course. A Nazi would say that they satisfied his moral objectives for his ideal society, and that they were attractive to him or her.

Of course, I did point out, in case you missed it, that democratic principles are also extended to the global level. All citizens of any given jurisdiction are ultimately and simultaneously citizens of the planet. The ability of human beings to define what kind of world they want to make for themselves is another basic principle that must resolve itself with the rights of citizens on a national scale. We resort to international law to test this compatibility. The Nuremburg Laws, as clearly established in the eponymous Trials, were contrary to International Law under the Geneve Convention as it existed. In that sense, the globally determined welfare of all peoples over-ruled local concerns in Germany.

Anynama141

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Think about it. It really doesn't matter to a family whether the extra money they lose every month is titled USC or Income Tax.

Indeed, but the USC is also a progressive tax. Even the property tax should align quite closely with household wealth, unless poorer people tend to live in more expensive houses.