Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

Options
1…2122242627…29

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    "Mr Ó Caoláin said the vote on the night of the guarantee, which was supported by Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, the Green Party and Fine Gael, was only designed to indicate support for the banks. He said it would not have been effective if another law was not passed on October 17 and Sinn Féin tried to block this.

    “When we saw the detail of what the Government proposed, the Credit Institutions Bill, we opposed it.

    “We opposed it that day and in every other way it has manifested itself since... and no amount of twisting and turning of the Labour Party will change that,” he said."
    marienbad wrote: »
    How is that dis-information ? Is it not just a statement of fact ?


  • Options
    #693
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    maccored wrote: »
    "Mr Ó Caoláin said the vote on the night of the guarantee, which was supported by Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, the Green Party and Fine Gael, was only designed to indicate support for the banks. He said it would not have been effective if another law was not passed on October 17 and Sinn Féin tried to block this.

    “When we saw the detail of what the Government proposed, the Credit Institutions Bill, we opposed it.

    “We opposed it that day and in every other way it has manifested itself since... and no amount of twisting and turning of the Labour Party will change that,” he said."

    They voted for it and then voted against it - true or false ? Labour voted against it .


  • Options
    #694
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    doesnt hurt to educate oneself on these things rather than repeating bull**** ones hears on the telly - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/election-2011/sinn-fein-defends-bank-guarantee-vote-144934.html

    Yes, they voted for a blanket guarantee when no-one said how it would be funded, and then against when it had to be paid for.

    It's a bit like all their other policies: they are for very generous health, education and welfare spending, but against "ordinary people" paying for them.

    There must be some rich person, or foreign corporation, or foreign capitalist gambling bondholder who can be soaked to pay our bills.

    Or we could just borrow it until we go broke, and then default! And then start borrowing again!


  • Options
    #695
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    maccored wrote: »
    which is something sf never said. they wanted to burn the unguaranteed bondholders. that was a much better option. It was interesting the other night on telly where Eoin ó Broin cut strips of his opponents in Tonight with Vincent Browne:

    "you come on this show and start talk about 'fantasy economics' - read the stuff before you decide to dismiss it."

    That reminds me of posters on boards to be honest

    But the point is by the time anyone wanted to burn the bondholders, it was already too late.

    It is like saying give us back our flour after the cake is baked, it can't be done because the flour is now intertwined and joined to all of the other ingredients.

    Similarly, once the FF government put the guarantee in place (supported by all except Labour), there was no going back. The promises made to keep the banks stable and money in the ATMs had to be kept in order to maintain the credibility of the banking system.

    If the government had refused the guarantee, the following day Anglo would have gone bust, quickly followed by Irish Nationwide, depositers, bondholders and shareholders would have been completely burnt. The financial system would have been in crisis. The consequence of that would have been AIB and BOI ending up in State hands, not too dissimilar to where we ended up but without the big bill for the two broken banks. Unfortunately, putting the guarantee in place was like turning on the mixer before putting the cake in the oven.

    SF calls to burn the bondholders now are populism of the malign kind because it can't be done so even if the masses want it to happen, you are playing to the gallery and promising something that can't be achieved.


  • Options
    #696
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    marienbad wrote: »
    They voted for it and then voted against it - true or false ? Labour voted against it .

    Ah now - they only voted for it when they didn't understand what it was they were voting for - and voted for it anyway. Perfectly understandable mistake.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Isn't it plain to read that they voted for it initially and then changed their mind once they got the relevant info? Labour voted against it - big deal. Labour also let a lot of people down once they got in power.
    marienbad wrote: »
    They voted for it and then voted against it - true or false ? Labour voted against it .


  • Options
    #698
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    people can read what SF said and make their own mind up - regardless of how naively you sum it up. Really - when your arguments get as silly as yours just got, its time to leave it be.
    alastair wrote: »
    Ah now - they only voted for it when they didn't understand what it was they were voting for - and voted for it anyway. Perfectly understandable mistake.


  • Options
    #699
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    i dont know what 'other policies' you've been reading up on. Obviously not sinn feins.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, they voted for a blanket guarantee when no-one said how it would be funded, and then against when it had to be paid for.

    It's a bit like all their other policies: they are for very generous health, education and welfare spending, but against "ordinary people" paying for them.

    There must be some rich person, or foreign corporation, or foreign capitalist gambling bondholder who can be soaked to pay our bills.

    Or we could just borrow it until we go broke, and then default! And then start borrowing again!


  • Options
    #700
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Its too late to get money back?

    "Excuse me, can I have my money back? Or better still, I'll just pay you less ..." - that wouldnt have been too hard to say would it? Thats if anyone in government had the balls to do so.

    Godge wrote: »
    But the point is by the time anyone wanted to burn the bondholders, it was already too late.

    It is like saying give us back our flour after the cake is baked, it can't be done because the flour is now intertwined and joined to all of the other ingredients.

    Similarly, once the FF government put the guarantee in place (supported by all except Labour), there was no going back. The promises made to keep the banks stable and money in the ATMs had to be kept in order to maintain the credibility of the banking system.

    If the government had refused the guarantee, the following day Anglo would have gone bust, quickly followed by Irish Nationwide, depositers, bondholders and shareholders would have been completely burnt. The financial system would have been in crisis. The consequence of that would have been AIB and BOI ending up in State hands, not too dissimilar to where we ended up but without the big bill for the two broken banks. Unfortunately, putting the guarantee in place was like turning on the mixer before putting the cake in the oven.

    SF calls to burn the bondholders now are populism of the malign kind because it can't be done so even if the masses want it to happen, you are playing to the gallery and promising something that can't be achieved.


  • Options
    #701
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    maccored wrote: »
    Isn't it plain to read that they voted for it initially and then changed their mind once they got the relevant info? Labour voted against it - big deal. Labour also let a lot of people down once they got in power.

    So they voted for it having no idea what it was about ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    marienbad wrote: »
    So they voted for it having no idea what it was about ?

    Ah now. You've just "naively summed it up".


  • Options
    #703
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    maccored wrote: »
    Its too late to get money back?

    "Excuse me, can I have my money back? Or better still, I'll just pay you less ..." - that wouldnt have been too hard to say would it? Thats if anyone in government had the balls to do so.


    Very funny. Who would you ask? The money is gone. we paid them.


  • Options
    #704
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    Very funny. Who would you ask? The money is gone. we paid them.

    I think we all got conned in that swindle.


  • Options
    #705
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    marienbad wrote: »
    So they voted for it having no idea what it was about ?

    Given the grim economic reality that Ireland faced at that precise moment, anyone who voted against the guarantee was utterly clueless economically. Hardly surprising though from the Labour party, a bunch of spineless self serving clowns since the time of James Connolly and James Larkin.

    Sein Fein did the right thing, along with FF and FG in voting for the guarantee. What is in question is the terms that were later agreed to and how the austerity measures were implemented. If people feel that putting the burden on old age pensioners is the way to go, then by all means support FG/Labour.

    The manner in which the current Irish government passed the burden on to the least able to bear it in society, whole protecting highly compensated political/state employees is an utter disgrace. The first appropriate austerity step that should have been taken would have been to cut all pensions for politicians / state employees to the level of those dependent on the state for such benefits. That would have been a good start rather than cutting benefits to those getting a few hundred Euro a week.

    I suspect they will get their answer at the next election and justifiably so, Labour in particular, who will likely be reduced to about the level of the Green party.


  • Options
    #706
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Given the grim economic reality that Ireland faced at that precise moment, anyone who voted against the guarantee was utterly clueless economically. Hardly surprising though from the Labour party, a bunch of spineless self serving clowns since the time of James Connolly and James Larkin.

    Sein Fein did the right thing, along with FF and FG in voting for the guarantee. What is in question is the terms that were later agreed to and how the austerity measures were implemented. If people feel that putting the burden on old age pensioners is the way to go, then by all means support FG/Labour.

    The manner in which the current Irish government passed the burden on to the least able to bear it in society, whole protecting highly compensated political/state employees is an utter disgrace. The first appropriate austerity step that should have been taken would have been to cut all pensions for politicians / state employees to the level of those dependent on the state for such benefits. That would have been a good start rather than cutting benefits to those getting a few hundred Euro a week.

    I suspect they will get their answer at the next election and justifiably so, Labour in particular, who will likely be reduced to about the level of the Green party.

    I don't think so , I think they will win the next general election handily enough.


  • Options
    #707
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't think so , I think they will win the next general election handily enough.

    Labour?? All the polls suggest they will be decimated similar to what happened after the Cosgrove led government in the 1970s.

    They'll be lucky to get a few thousand votes.


  • Options
    #708
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    maccored wrote: »
    i dont know what 'other policies' you've been reading up on. Obviously not sinn feins.

    Why'd they put them in their election manifesto, so?

    a)Invest in a major job-creation programme to get Ireland back to work;
    b)Reverse the savage cuts and prioritise frontline services;
    c)Burn the bondholders in Anglo Irish Bank and wind it up;
    d)Reduce the deficit by taxing the wealthiest and eliminating wasteful spending.
    e)Root and branch political reform aimed at producing a genuinely open and accountable form of Government which ends the notion of political elites and empowers Irish citizens
    f)An end to the two-tier health and education systems;
    g)The proper use of Ireland’s natural resources for the common good;
    h)Continued support for the Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement

    a b and f are massively, massively expensive, promised at a time when Ireland was utterly and completely broke. The only money-raising bits are soak the rich and burn the bondholders, both actions which would actually hurt our finances longterm.


  • Options
    #709
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The only money-raising bits are soak the rich and burn the bondholders, both actions which would actually hurt our finances longterm.
    Funny how anything that adversely affects the rich is catastrophic for the economy... maybe if we didn't tax them at all our finances would skyrocket?
    So, does that mean landing all the cuts on the poor is good for the economy?


  • Options
    #710
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Funny how anything that adversely affects the rich is catastrophic for the economy...

    We already have the most progressive income tax system in the EU. Sinn Féin want to make it even more progressive, with even more spending on health, welfare and education (which are the big money items in the budget), and then not have "working people" pay for it.

    There are not enough of the "wealthiest" in Ireland to pay for any of this, even if you were to confiscate all their wealth, 100%.

    And long before you got to that level of taxation, the wealthy would bugger off, and take their wealth with them.


  • Options
    #711
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I think we all got conned in that swindle.

    It was all inevitable once we guaranteed the banks. The FF government made a promise it thought it would never have to pay out on. A typical gombeen response. When the Europeans made us pay out later on foot of that promise we complained. We have some neck complaining about being forced to follow through on promises our government made.

    And don't tell me nobody knew. The bankers were all drinking champagne in the Horseshoe Bar the night after the guarantee, they knew they had pulled a stroke against the FF government, and it was all legal!
    nagirrac wrote: »

    Sein Fein did the right thing, along with FF and FG in voting for the guarantee. What is in question is the terms that were later agreed to and how the austerity measures were implemented. If people feel that putting the burden on old age pensioners is the way to go, then by all means support FG/Labour..

    Pensioners are the one group who escaped best from the austerity over the last few years. Still doing it with the water allowance.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The manner in which the current Irish government passed the burden on to the least able to bear it in society, whole protecting highly compensated political/state employees is an utter disgrace. The first appropriate austerity step that should have been taken would have been to cut all pensions for politicians / state employees to the level of those dependent on the state for such benefits. That would have been a good start rather than cutting benefits to those getting a few hundred Euro a week.
    .

    The only pensioners to have had a cut are the state employee pensioners.

    What you are saying is that people who paid into a pension all their working lives should be reduced to the level of people who sat on their arse the whole time. What a recipe for disaster.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Godge wrote: »
    It was all inevitable once we guaranteed the banks. The FF government made a promise it thought it would never have to pay out on. A typical gombeen response. When the Europeans made us pay out later on foot of that promise we complained. We have some neck complaining about being forced to follow through on promises our government made.

    It is becoming more and more evident that if somebody with balls had stood up to them that we may have garnered some support.
    The establishment here rolled over without any duty of care for Irish citizens.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0507/615802-european-union-ireland/


  • Options
    #713
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    We already have the most progressive income tax system in the EU.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
    Er, 18th highest top rate of tax in Europe.


  • Options
    #714
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
    Er, 18th highest top rate of tax in Europe.

    Now compare the level of earnings at which the top tax rate kicks in.


  • Options
    #715
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
    24th highest tax payers overall as % of GDP in Europe.


  • Options
    #716
    srsly78
    Registered Users Posts: 7,157 ✭✭✭srsly78


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
    24th highest tax payers overall as % of GDP in Europe.

    GDP is skewed by multinats in Ireland, use GNP instead.


  • Options
    #717
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
    24th highest tax payers overall as % of GDP in Europe.

    That is total tax revenue.

    There are two reasons for Ireland being so low on that list:

    (1) No property tax and no water tax until now - even then the revenue from these taxes will be low compared to other countries.

    (2) People on low incomes pay very little tax compared to other countries.

    In order to protect those two cases, we have the most progressive tax regime - but it still doesn't raise enough money.


  • Options
    #718
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,664 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-taxes-are-now-too-high-ida-chief-warns-29834569.html - taxes havent gone down since.


  • Options
    #719
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    maccored wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/our-taxes-are-now-too-high-ida-chief-warns-29834569.html - taxes havent gone down since.

    That article refers to the top level of income tax levied on high earners as being too high and discouraging foreign investment. I would agree with this.

    However, that just shows up the need for the household property tax and water charges as well as the need to ensure that everyone pays some tax. Some people escape the tax net altogether.


  • Options
    #720
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Labour?? All the polls suggest they will be decimated similar to what happened after the Cosgrove led government in the 1970s.

    They'll be lucky to get a few thousand votes.

    Things will change ,I'd be fairly sure of it. No comparison with the greens at all


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    turnikett1 wrote: »
    Why are Sinn Fein "bad"?

    Well all you had to do was to witness menacing circus that surrounded the detention of the SF Führer leader to witness the mask slipping just enough to know that they are not just any old political party, but a party that can make a threat, with just a whiff of something more sinister should their man not be realeased noy (now).

    Scary, bad, with a tendancy to instability (or volitility) should one of the 'collective' be questioned about anything to do with the PIRA. (That's the one that has gone away now) but did exist in the 70s, 80s, 90s, the same one that G.Adams had no connection with at all at all ;)


Advertisement