Way to go Sinn Fein

Smidge

Red Nissan wrote: »

Not at all. I do edit just enough from a post to show, either who I am replying to or and interesting bit.

I don't want to repost the whole thing for a few reasons. One is length, it makes reading so annoying, especially on tiny phone screens and even larger tablets can have difficulty.

I might not agree with the other points or they might contain actual illegal information or be otherwise libelous, in that case I'd be spreading it.

A point can be taken out of context, sure it can and it can change one's entire point ~ debating strategy uses this all the time, which is why no minister will ever actually answer a question.

However, it's also seen a poor debating and shows a side losing.

Why are you quoting me and replying to a post that was in response to another post?
I was quoted in post #743 on pg 50 of this thread by donkeyoaty0099 and then replied to that in post #793 pg 53.
You have replied to this in post #809.
It is possible that you have 2 accounts and just forgot which one you were logged in as when you replied? :eek::eek:

Or just a genuine error?

miles_away

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You were claiming Ireland's problem is that it has a massive welfare bill. I pointed out that compared to the Nordic zone it doesn't, yet they did not need a bailout - which is actually a loan on which interest will be paid.

Welfare did not bankrupt us.

An artificially inflated unregulated property bubble coupled with an unregulated banking system designed to make a 'killing' in property for an elite which was rescued at taxpayers expense is what bankrupted us.

it was only an unsustainable property bubble ( and the revenue it generated ) which allowed bertie ahernes goverment to inflate wellfare ( and public sector pay ) levels , the state pension doubled over a ten year period to 2007 and has not come down one cent since

so in effect , you cannot on one hand defend wellfare rates while at the same time condemn the very revenue generator which allowed those rates to exist in the first place

Reformed Character

Every time Enda says there is no pot of gold I cringe.
There is a pot of gold, it is the pot of gold in bondholder debt that the ECB blackmailed us into paying, it should be returned and it must be returned.

Woodville56

Duiske wrote: »

Seems that you yourself may be a bit more misguided than a large percentage of the electorate. Most of the electorate would realise that the elections on Friday were local elections, not a general election, and that County Councils have no say in taxation policy.

Well I've heard more than one SF politician talk up this "success" as a forerunner to greater vote share at the next General Election here and ultimately power brokers in a future administration - don't tell me ye wouldnt want to be in such a position? Its easy to shout all the populist rant from the opposition benches but it will be interesting to see what happens on the local authorities where SF hold the balance of power..thats my point ! Yes I realise it was a Local Authority & EU election and unless I'm mistaken local authorities have the power to set the rates payable on commercial properties and will have the power to reduce /raise water charges under the new legislation.....so happy days for us all if SF get their way...loads of money for all of us ..no increased water or property charges etc etc ....well it is what ye we selling on the doorsteps...or is it a case of all style and little substance , time will tell !

Red Nissan

Smidge wrote: »

Why are you quoting me and replying to a post that was in response to another post?

Answering in general as this comes up a few times, especially in the weather forum where we'd follow on the iPhone and someone reposting a string of maps when one was only relevant often comes in for a gentle critic form other members.

Not exactly replying to you per sae, just a generality.

Reformed Character

Woodville56 wrote: »

Well I've heard more than one SF politician talk up this "success" as a forerunner to greater vote share at the next General Election here and ultimately power brokers in a future administration - don't tell me ye wouldnt want to be in such a position? Its easy to shout all the populist rant from the opposition benches but it will be interesting to see what happens on the local authorities where SF hold the balance of power..thats my point ! Yes I realise it was a Local Authority & EU election and unless I'm mistaken local authorities have the power to set the rates payable on commercial properties and will have the power to reduce /raise water charges under the new legislation.....so happy days for us all if SF get their way...loads of money for all of us ..no increased water or property charges etc etc ....well it is what ye we selling on the doorsteps...or is it a case of all style and little substance , time will tell !

No they wont, the regulator has the sole power to set water charges, Councils have zero say in it.

miles_away

upyores wrote: »

Every time Enda says there is no pot of gold I cringe.
There is a pot of gold, it is the pot of gold in bondholder debt that the ECB blackmailed us into paying, it should be returned and it must be returned.

if we burned the bondholders , our credit rating would have been assigned junk status and would have remained there for the foreseable future , their are consequences for defaulting on debt , buying bonds is viewed globally as a relatively safe investment , far more so than buying stocks

you can renague on debt obligations but people wont trust you in the future , you wont be able to borrow at reasonable levels and spending cuts will eventually follow

Smidge

Red Nissan wrote: »

Answering in general as this comes up a few times, especially in the weather forum where we'd follow on the iPhone and someone reposting a string of maps when one was only relevant often comes in for a gentle critic form other members.

Not exactly replying to you per sae, just a generality.

Fair enough but you did come across as speaking as that poster ie donkeyoaty0099 and not as someone just replying to a post which is why I asked(see above post #843).

Bannasidhe

Red Nissan wrote: »

Actual jobs that offer a living wage.

Then insist that a quota is filled by the unemployed from the Irish live register of long term unemployed. What happened in the boom was the jobs were filled by migrants in what could be termed 'worker trafficking' ~ the Ballincollig By-Pass was built by a Turkish migrant force of families, whose males head worded for a €1 an hour ~ but had a day off and had their family with them and they were all fed and kept and educated on site.

Don't even get me started on the treatment of migrant workers :mad:.

One thing I will say is that back in the day when listening to discussions on these takin our jerbs migrant workers few people bothered to look and see exactly who was employing them - good old Irish employers usually.

Bannasidhe

miles_away wrote: »

it was only an unsustainable property bubble ( and the revenue it generated ) which allowed bertie ahernes goverment to inflate wellfare ( and public sector pay ) levels , the state pension doubled over a ten year period to 2007 and has not come down one cent since

so in effect , you cannot on one hand defend wellfare rates while at the same time condemn the very revenue generator which allowed those rates to exist in the first place

Where did I defend welfare rates?

I seem to recall that I was simply pointing out that welfare rates did not cause us to go bankrupt...

miles_away

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Damn sponger pensioners - who do they think they are eh!

What did they ever do for Ireland bar pay insane tax rates in the past to fund our education, health care etc etc.

So - do you favour euthanasia or death by hunger/hypothermia?
Should I smother my 81 year old began full time work as an apprentice baker aged 14 in 1948 and is still working part-time and paying tax father with a pillow or should we allow him to try and survive on his part-time earnings and see how that goes?

Me mammy will have to go - she had to quit job when she got married and then what with raising us and all sure she hardly has a stamp to her name.

how do you expect to be taken seriously when you engage in hyperbole like the above ?

Reformed Character

miles_away wrote: »

if we burned the bondholders , our credit rating would have been assigned junk status and would have remained there for the foreseable future , their are consequences for defaulting on debt , buying bonds is viewed globally as a relatively safe investment , far more so than buying stocks

you can renague on debt obligations but people wont trust you in the future , you wont be able to borrow at reasonable levels and spending cuts will eventually follow

I was not suggesting burning the holders of Irish sovereign debt, but we had no legal liability to pay the bondholders in the banks, many of whom were unsecured.

miles_away

maryishere wrote: »

and here pensioners get perks like "free" travel ( nothing is free) and tv licence and fuel etc. That's just the basic pension here.
As David McWilliams says, our pension for public servants is nearly triple what UK public servants get. That is completely unsustainable.

more to the point , as recent as 2011 , if you were over seventy and married , you could have a joined income of 70 k per year and still receive free health care

its now down to 45 k per year for a couple over seventy

to deny that pensioners in ireland have it absurdly good is to completely deny fiscal reality

as for the contributions those pensioners made during their working lives , most pensioners today will draw down four times what they made in PRSI contributions , its important to remember that income tax never went towards future pension entitlements

Santa Cruz

upyores wrote: »

Every time Enda says there is no pot of gold I cringe.
There is a pot of gold, it is the pot of gold in bondholder debt that the ECB blackmailed us into paying, it should be returned and it must be returned.

We don't need a pot of gold when we have money growing on trees in the back garden

miles_away

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Where did I defend welfare rates?

I seem to recall that I was simply pointing out that welfare rates did not cause us to go bankrupt...

well you have been defending wellfare rates now for three pages so its safe to assume you support current rates

Woodville56

tomwaterford wrote: »

but will that not leave SF as main opposition party and given the irish tradition of the smaller party in coalition being wiped out...give SF a fair shot (great pun:pac::pac:_) at power the next election???

Could be an interesting experiment allrite !

Bannasidhe

miles_away wrote: »

if we burned the bondholders , our credit rating would have been assigned junk status and would have remained there for the foreseable future , their are consequences for defaulting on debt , buying bonds is viewed globally as a relatively safe investment , far more so than buying stocks

you can renague on debt obligations but people wont trust you in the future , you wont be able to borrow at reasonable levels and spending cuts will eventually follow

Like happened with Iceland?

On...hang on...

Arion Bank hf sold bonds to offshore investors as the successor to failed Kaupthing Bank hf taps global markets more than four years after Iceland’s banking system collapsed under an $85 billion mountain of debt.

The lender raised 500 million Norwegian kroner ($88 million) in floating rate notes maturing in 2016, with a coupon that’s 5 percentage points more than the Norwegian interbank offered rate, Reykjavik-based Arion said in a statement today. The sale was managed by Pareto Oehman and sold to investors in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the U.K. and mainland Europe and Asia, according to the statement.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/icelandic-bank-sells-first-international-bonds-since-collapse.html

Seems like burned the bondholders left the banks collapse imprisoned their prime minister Iceland managed to return to the bond market before loaded the debt on the taxpayer for generations to come Ireland.

Well golly gosh!

longhalloween

If Sinn Fein get into the Dail in 2016, what would be the ramifications of having the whole island of Ireland controlled by the same political party?

Would we move towards a united Ireland?

Red Nissan

miles_away wrote: »

if we burned the bondholders , our credit rating would have been assigned junk status and would have remained there for the foreseable future ,

Ultimately we must burn them. We must return to an economy based on creation, making food from seeds, mining minerals and making ships and planes and working for shares and credits that gets us what we need to live and monetary system must die.

The end goal of the monetary system is for one man to own all the money.

Money has lost it's value and all the debts in the World cannot be repaid. That's a fact. Paying the bond holders is just like driving a bulldozer down the road and pushing the mountain of debt before it.

Eventually two things happen, the bulldozer runs out of fuel or the mountain gets too big for it's engine to push further, we have reached both points, our economic bulldozer is out of fuel and is just coasting down a gentle hill, paying the bond holders in this example means we don't have the money to refuel our bulldozer so it may be abandoned to rust.

miles_away

upyores wrote: »

I was not suggesting burning the holders of Irish sovereign debt, but we had no legal liability to pay the bondholders in the banks, many of whom were unsecured.

ok but if our banking system had crumbled , the economy would have went into free fall very quickly , most people did not want an acute sharp piercing incision , unions took to the street in 2008 after lennehan enforced relatively minor pension reform and pay cuts , a slow prolonged drip of " austerity " was the only option for a largely uninformed electorate

the reality is most people just wanted the ( property bubble revenue ) boom times to continue and are p1ssed off about it , SF tell them it can if the " rich " pay so they buy the ticket

if this goverment can get things back on track by 2016 , i dont see SF being in with a shot of a place in goverment , irish voters are me feiners who vote with their pocket , they largely speaking have no idealogy , hence why a completely principal and idealogy free chancer like bertie ahere had so much political success here for so long

one thing i know for certain , the vast majority of irish people do not want the kind of socilism which SF believe in

suicide_circus

i predict people here being sorely disappointed when SF do get into office and are unable to do anything differently and turn out to be the exact same as the rest of them. the trust and positivty about SF displayed here is almost infectious but i fear highly naive. as i said in a previous post, if you want a preview of SF in power, look north of the border where they are fully "establishment", handing out austerity and towing the line.

Smidge

longhalloween wrote: »

If Sinn Fein get into the Dail in 2016, what would be the ramifications of having the whole island of Ireland controlled by the same political party?

Would we move towards a united Ireland?

I don't think that will happen. The majority of people in the North don't want it and I would hazard a guess that most people in the South don't want it either.

Bannasidhe

miles_away wrote: »

how do you expect to be taken seriously when you engage in hyperbole like the above ?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with blanket statements which imply that all pensioners are on the pigs back?

Some are - many are not.

bumper234

suicide_circus wrote: »

i predict people here being sorely disappointed when SF do get into office

The same could be said when they don't get into office.

Bannasidhe

miles_away wrote: »

well you have been defending wellfare rates now for three pages so its safe to assume you support current rates

No it is not safe to assume anything.

Unless you can point out where exactly I defended current rates you can withdraw that comment.

Dan_Solo

miles_away wrote: »

one thing i know for certain , the vast majority of irish people do not want the kind of socilism which SF believe in

And you know this for certain how?
Please don't start your answer with the idiotic "most people did not vote for...". Thanks.

miles_away

iceland chose a path but to think it was entirely painless , is extremely foolish , choices are everywhere , people can chose to make SF the largest party at the next general election , equality would most likely rise but the ability to create wealth would drastically reduce , you cannot pour large amounts of money into social programes without wealth

its important not to be taken in by cheap populist slogans !

Dan_Solo

Smidge wrote: »

I don't think that will happen. The majority of people in the North don't want it and I would hazard a guess that most people in the South don't want it either.

As iwasfrozen went into a semi-catatonic state of confusion trying to comprehend, I find myself as a supporter of SF's policies except for NI. Don't want it really. Unification would just set the clock back to 1975 when we at least have peace there now.

miles_away

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with blanket statements which imply that all pensioners are on the pigs back?

Some are - many are not.

all of them receive entitlements which are more than adqaquete to cover living expenses , you cannot regulate every single case however , some people are hopeless money managers and would be struggling on a grand per week

relative to most european countries however , irish pensioners have it incredibly good

Dan_Solo

miles_away wrote: »

iceland chose a path but to think it was entirely painless , is extremely foolish

From what I've read and the Icelandics I've talked to it was no worse than what we have here with one big difference: now it's over.