Does Anti-austeriry really annoy anyone else?

TheBigLebowski

I have to say I agree with the OP. I wonder how many anti austerity campaigners have seen real poverty. I've seen real poverty and this why I find it hard to complain myself and I find it hard to take people seriously moaning about the 'home tax' etc.

When you've seen stuff like this, it's hard not to tell Irish people to 'get over themselves' as the OP did...

Anynama141

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I have to say I agree with the OP. I wonder how many anti austerity campaigners have seen real poverty.

I've walked around rural Peru. That's poverty. Folks here have no idea how lucky they are.

Banjo String

El Spearo wrote: »

but I just wish there were more people who just got on with it.

El Spearo wrote: »

but it's just a matter of get on with it. You can either moan and endure or brave it and try be happy. Im the latter.

The last person I heard constantly repeating that phrase, actually didn't.

King of Kings

Anynama141 wrote: »

I've walked around rural Peru. That's poverty. Folks here have no idea how lucky they are.

that;'s not really an argument to be fair.
because they live in a ****hole doesn't mean that we in ireland should accept sub standard lifestyle on the basis that "at least it's better than peru".

Ireland has both monies and debt to pay.
However those that did least to cause the debt shoulder most of the burden and the monies that are there are not being utilised fairly or in order of need.

Cutting special needs assistance from kids, cancer treatments etc... should be the final straw.
Killing quango that promote some god awful utopia should be first on the chopping board.
Who can say that the grants to the horse racing industry are more worthy than a child's hospital.

The really distressing thing about the special needs thing is that this impacts children at a vital stage in their development. Without that support they may not grow up to function in society and who knows what will happen to them but by and large they will be a burden on the state in some way in the future - when a good bit of it was preventable.

So austerity is not only unfair but stupid too.

Anynama141

King of Kings wrote: »

that;'s not really an argument to be fair.
because they live in a ****hole doesn't mean that we in ireland should accept sub standard lifestyle on the basis that "at least it's better than peru".

That's not the argument though. The argument is that, in absolute terms, the 'poor' of Ireland live quite well. They have somewhere to live, food to eat, free education, access to legal aid, and so on.

King of Kings wrote: »

Ireland has both monies and debt to pay.
However those that did least to cause the debt shoulder most of the burden and the monies that are there are not being utilised fairly or in order of need.

Cutting special needs assistance from kids, cancer treatments etc... should be the final straw.
Killing quango that promote some god awful utopia should be first on the chopping board.
Who can say that the grants to the horse racing industry are more worthy than a child's hospital.

Broadly I agree, but I presume some serious cost/benefit analyses were done before these cuts came in - I don't know the details obviously, but why would they make such unpopular changes otherwise? Grants/tax breaks to horse racing I would be particularly suspicious of, but again, does that money earn itself back in employment in the bloodstock industry? If yes, it's a good thing. If not, then obviously it's not.

King of Kings wrote: »

The really distressing thing about the special needs thing is that this impacts children at a vital stage in their development. Without that support they may not grow up to function in society and who knows what will happen to them but by and large they will be a burden on the state in some way in the future - when a good bit of it was preventable.

So austerity is not only unfair but stupid too.

Again, it might just come down to hard numbers. I'm no authority here, so I'm only speaking as a devil's advocate, but perhaps cutting teaching to 'normal' kids by the same extent will end up costing the state more than cutting special ed teaching?

Otherwise, why would they do it? (which is not to say that I approve of it, of course)

KyussBishop

Why is it that people comparing to the poor in Somalia/India etc., never understand that they are advocating for a race-to-the-bottom in living standards?
Basically telling everyone, they should accept any fall in living standards that happens, until we are at least as bad off as these other poor people; utter ignorance and stupidity.

It's not only that, but is simultaneously (consciously or not) an apologist argument in support of the fraud and misgovernance that led us to and keeps us in this situation as well, that we should not complain about any wrongdoing, no matter how bad, until we've been fúcked over so bad we're like the poor in Somalia/India.


It's basically a variation of "sit down, shut up"; even when you point out the fraud and breaching of regulations i.e. laws committed, and the widespread lack of convictions for those involved, these same people still balk at the idea of protesting against that, and go into full-nitpicking denial mode (and surprise, half the time you find out they work in finance themselves), even though it's perfectly clear that is something worth protesting over in itself.

TheBigLebowski

King of Kings wrote: »

that;'s not really an argument to be fair.
because they live in a ****hole doesn't mean that we in ireland should accept sub standard lifestyle on the basis that "at least it's better than peru".

You're kind of missing the point there. Some people's standard of living in Ireland may be sub standard to the way it was a few years ago. However it has a long long long way to go before it gets to the type of conditions the majority of humanity live in. We're not talking only about isolated people in Peru, we're talking about billions of people.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why is it that people comparing to the poor in Somalia/India etc., never understand that they are advocating for a race-to-the-bottom in living standards?
Basically telling everyone, they should accept any fall in living standards that happens, until we are at least as bad off as these other poor people; utter ignorance and stupidity.

Why is it that people insist in reading into posts what they want to read as a launching pad for their own beliefs?

Does anybody seriously think someone is advocating a move to Somalian standards of living? (well, one person does it seems)

The point is that the person here who has their rent paid for, their food paid for, their education paid for, their clothes paid for, their travel paid for, their medical treatments paid for, their heating paid for, even their foreign holidays paid for - and they STILL roll out the béal bocht, well they don't have a clue what real poverty is like.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

Why is it that people insist in reading into posts what they want to read as a launching pad for their own beliefs?

Does anybody seriously think someone is advocating a move to Somalian standards of living? (well, one person does it seems)

The point is that the person here who has their rent paid for, their food paid for, their education paid for, their clothes paid for, their travel paid for, their medical treatments paid for, their heating paid for, even their foreign holidays paid for - and they STILL roll out the béal bocht, well they don't have a clue what real poverty is like.

Then why even bring it up, or trot out the "it's not as bad as in 'x' country" line of argument at all. If you're not telling people to stop complaining, because our standard of living isn't as bad as in that other country (which is inherently advocating a 'race-to-the-bottom' in standards), then there's no point of bringing it up at all.

Who gives a toss what real poverty is like? You don't have to experience it first-hand, to have standards. You're either telling them to accept reduced living standards, or you're not; if you're not, there is no point in even bringing it up.

Norwesterner

King of Kings wrote: »

that;'s not really an argument to be fair.
because they live in a ****hole doesn't mean that we in ireland should accept sub standard lifestyle on the basis that "at least it's better than peru".

Ireland has both monies and debt to pay.
However those that did least to cause the debt shoulder most of the burden and the monies that are there are not being utilised fairly or in order of need.

Cutting special needs assistance from kids, cancer treatments etc... should be the final straw.
Killing quango that promote some god awful utopia should be first on the chopping board.
Who can say that the grants to the horse racing industry are more worthy than a child's hospital.

The really distressing thing about the special needs thing is that this impacts children at a vital stage in their development. Without that support they may not grow up to function in society and who knows what will happen to them but by and large they will be a burden on the state in some way in the future - when a good bit of it was preventable.

So austerity is not only unfair but stupid too.

Spending more money than you're taking in is not good economics.
It's like someone in mortgage arrears getting the drive cobble-locked, an extension, buying the auld trampoline.....all the while getting deeper and deeper in do-do.

I'm all for austerity and swinging the hatchet.
Problem is the Govt are swinging the hatchet in the wrong direction.
I'd cut the Taoiseachs wage by 50% and pass a law making it unable for any Public Servant to make more than the Taoiseach.
Do you agree with the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces earning more than the CoS of the U.S Army?
If No. You agree with austerity and cuts.
Unforunately, due to bad decisions, austerity is now a bad name and associated with hospital closures and cuts in education.
Austerity is good, if directed at the fat rather than the lean.

King of Kings

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

You're kind of missing the point there. Some people's standard of living in Ireland may be sub standard to the way it was a few years ago. However it has a long long long way to go before it gets to the type of conditions the majority of humanity live in. We're not talking only about isolated people in Peru, we're talking about billions of people.

no I get the point and what you say is true.
My point is that peru shouldn't enter the measurement.

Yes , we're no peru/haiti/india (insert other god forsaken place) - but doesn't mean what we have is acceptable either.

We cannot sustain our poor - the food kitchens are swamped.
people are skipping meals to ensure their kids don't.

what is happening is unacceptable in that it's happening for one; but worst of all the manner in which it is happening ;which swings wildly between unfair and stupid.

I've mention the unfair bit already but the stupid bit is the lack of measure to increase cash flow.

for example - instead of humping 2% on VAT there could have slashed it to 15%.
Sales would have gone up with cheaper goods more people employed and less on the dole.
savings all round monetarily and then the intangible benefits of an unemployed person having some self worth by earning once again.

I could go on.

But in answer to the OP - no Anti-Austerity needs to stay

TheBigLebowski

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why is it that people comparing to the poor in Somalia/India etc., never understand that they are advocating for a race-to-the-bottom in living standards?
Basically telling everyone, they should accept any fall in living standards that happens, until we are at least as bad off as these other poor people; utter ignorance and stupidity.

It's not only that, but is simultaneously (consciously or not) an apologist argument in support of the fraud and misgovernance that led us to and keeps us in this situation as well, that we should not complain about any wrongdoing, no matter how bad, until we've been fúcked over so bad we're like the poor in Somalia/India.


It's basically a variation of "sit down, shut up"; even when you point out the fraud and breaching of regulations i.e. laws committed, and the widespread lack of convictions for those involved, these same people still balk at the idea of protesting against that, and go into full-nitpicking denial mode (and surprise, half the time you find out they work in finance themselves), even though it's perfectly clear that is something worth protesting over in itself.

I don't see anybody saying we should live like the poor in India/Somalia? I would like to see other countries poor people get to a level approaching the living standards of the poor people of ireland, and then we can progress from there. I'm not going to moan about a 300 euro property tax even if I am on the dole when I've seen children literally starve to death in slums.

TheBigLebowski

KyussBishop wrote: »

Who gives a toss what real poverty is like?

Clearly you don't but some people do.

KyussBishop

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I don't see anybody saying we should live like the poor in India/Somalia? I would like to see other countries poor people get to a level approaching the living standards of the poor people of ireland, and then we can progress from there. I'm not going to moan about a 300 euro property tax even if I am on the dole when I've seen children literally starve to death in slums.

You're arguing for a race-to-the-bottom in living standards, by saying people should "get over themselves" and not be critical of a reduction in living standards here, when there are worse-off countries elsewhere.

Take that to it's logical conclusion; that line of argument, applies right up to the point of our living standards reaching those of India/Somalia.

KyussBishop

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Clearly you don't but some people do.

What relevance does it even have? You don't have to experience poverty yourself, to be able to criticize a reduction in standard of living.

TheBigLebowski

King of Kings wrote: »

Yes , we're no peru/haiti/india (insert other god forsaken place) - but doesn't mean what we have is acceptable either.

according to who? You and a couple of thousand protesters (which is what about 0.2% of the population)? It is acceptable to me given our current circumstances.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Then why even bring it up, or trot out the "it's not as bad as in 'x' country" line of argument at all. If you're not telling people to stop complaining, because our standard of living isn't as bad as in that other country (which is inherently advocating a 'race-to-the-bottom' in standards), then there's no point of bringing it up at all.

Who gives a toss what real poverty is like? You don't have to experience it first-hand, to have standards. You're either telling them to accept reduced living standards, or you're not; if you're not, there is no point in even bringing it up.

Thus speaks a man who hasn't seen the misery of true poverty.

schnitzelEater

Yeah, we should cancel (so called) austerity because less than 1% of the population says so. Democracy in action.

TheBigLebowski

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

according to who? You and a couple of thousand protesters (which is what about 0.2% of the population)? It is acceptable to me given our current circumstances.

I think you'll find it is just over .001% of the population that took to the streets of Dublin yesterday.

Norwesterner

You don't even have to mention Peru for comparison.
An unemployed person in Ireland earns more than a rookie policeman in Spain or factory worker in Germany.
Technically, a Spanish, Greek or Portuguese citizen could come to Ireland, get on welfare and earn more than working in Spain, Greece etc.
This is being paid with borrowed money , which is growing every month.
Ahern and Mc Creevy went ballistic with money during the Boom, in an attempt to curry votes.
Totally unsavourable to cut down the magic money tree, but the current situation is unsustainable.
In order to achieve wage cuts and welfare cuts however, prices of goods and property must also come down

TheBigLebowski

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're arguing for a race-to-the-bottom in living standards, by saying people should "get over themselves" and not be critical of a reduction in living standards here, when there are worse-off countries elsewhere.

Take that to it's logical conclusion; that line of argument, applies right up to the point of our living standards reaching those of India/Somalia.

Nonsense. I know several people on the dole complaining about a drop in living standards due to taxes. Their idea of a drop in living standards is just the one yearly holiday to the 'poxy costa del sol' and only going out drinking once a week. As we say, we don't know how lucky we have it. It's not a race to the bottom. It's a race to reality.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

Thus speaks a man who hasn't seen the misery of true poverty.

You don't even explain its relevance to the discussion, you think people have no right to complain about a reduction in living standards here, until they experience the level of poverty like in India/Somalia.

I don't have to witness or experience poverty to criticize these policies, that is a truly stupid criticism; you don't even see the irony in using poverty elsewhere, as a justification for being an apologist, for policies that will cause greater poverty here.

If you really gave a toss about poverty (which I do; I don't care to personally find out what 'real poverty' is like though, because I don't need to, to justify my arguments or to oppose poverty), then you wouldn't be advocating policies that worsen it, and disingenuously/hypocritically trying to use poverty elsewhere, as a means to justify that, which is cynical and dishonest in the extreme.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

Norwesterner wrote: »

You don't even have to mention Peru for comparison.
An unemployed person in Ireland earns more than a rookie policeman in Spain or factory worker in Germany.
Technically, a Spanish, Greek or Portuguese citizen could come to Ireland, get on welfare and earn more than working in Spain, Greece etc.
This is being paid with borrowed money , which is growing every month.
Ahern and Mc Creevy went ballistic with money during the Boom, in an attempt to curry votes.
Totally unsavourable to cut down the magic money tree, but the current situation is unsustainable.
In order to achieve wage cuts and welfare cuts however, prices of goods and property must also come down

I agree with what you say about welfare cuts but are you seriously trying to tell me that a Factory worker in Germany earns less than €188 per week?

KyussBishop

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

Nonsense. I know several people on the dole complaining about a drop in living standards due to taxes. Their idea of a drop in living standards is just the one yearly holiday to the 'poxy costa del sol' and only going out drinking once a week. As we say, we don't know how lucky we have it. It's not a race to the bottom. It's a race to reality.

Yes the usual anecdotal garbage, that tries to portray everyone who complains as profligate moaners and spongers, totally ignoring the very real instances of people suffering, due to their financial difficulties and unemployment, and those driven to worsened health and even suicide because of it; that is just ignorant.

Your 'race-to-the-bottomreality', is built upon lazy anecdotes/generalizations and trite relativist arguments, which seem to be ignorant of 1: the actual financial reality a lot of people face, 2: the effects of the policies you are implicitly supporting, and 3: the very real and legitimate issues there are to protest over, like instances of fraud and corruption that led to the crisis, that have gone unpunished.

TheBigLebowski

KyussBishop wrote: »

Yes the usual anecdotal garbage, that tries to portray everyone who complains as profligate moaners and spongers, totally ignoring the very real instances of people suffering, due to their financial difficulties and unemployment, and those driven to worsened health and even suicide because of it; that is just ignorant.

Your 'race-to-the-bottomreality', is built upon lazy anecdotes/generalizations and trite relativist arguments, which seem to be ignorant of 1: the actual financial reality a lot of people face, 2: the effects of the policies you are implicitly supporting, and 3: the very real and legitimate issues there are to protest over, like instances of fraud and corruption that led to the crisis, that have gone unpunished.

I suspect that if things were as bad as you portray, there would be a lot more people on the streets. The reason there is not more people protesting is that, well 99% of people are not really struggling all that much/at all.

Overheal

El Spearo wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0413/381224-5-000-people-attend-anti-austerity-march/

This kind of marching etc really bugs me. The St Paddy's day parade in KK was dire enough, but at the very end these kind of eejits came up along at the end to ruin a family day with politics.

The whole thing annoys me. Marching around with the tri colour trying to incite a rebellion against the government. You'd swear we had it hard in this country.

I accept this is going to be a very unpopular post, but I just wish there were more people who just got on with it.

Im confused, are you more upset that they are protesting the government not to increase revenues and cut stupid (being idiots) or are you more upset that they are speaking up against the government?

Really???

They may be frickin' idiots, but you picked the complete wrong thing to be outraged about.

Anynama141

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your 'race-to-the-bottomreality', is built upon lazy anecdotes/generalizations and trite relativist arguments, which seem to be ignorant of 1: the actual financial reality a lot of people face

KyussBishop wrote: »

Who gives a toss what real poverty is like?

Norwesterner

deccurley wrote: »

I agree with what you say about welfare cuts but are you seriously trying to tell me that a Factory worker in Germany earns less than €188 per week?

188 a week plus rent paid for.

Norwesterner

Norwesterner wrote: »

188 a week plus rent paid for.

Not everyone gets their rent paid.

KyussBishop

Anynama141 wrote: »

You're not making any argument or point here, to show what you're taking issue with.

If you're nitpicking still over that sentence, you need to be doing it while taking it out of context, after my later restatement:

KyussBishop wrote:

If you really gave a toss about poverty (which I do; I don't care to personally find out what 'real poverty' is like though, because I don't need to, to justify my arguments or to oppose poverty), then you wouldn't be advocating policies that worsen it, and disingenuously/hypocritically trying to use poverty elsewhere, as a means to justify that, which is cynical and dishonest in the extreme.