Anti Austerity Alliance - Keeping people in Poverty Trap

Jolly Red Giant

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The only people who have ever claimed that Tsipras was leading a 'far left' government was the likes of Merkel and her cronies.Tsipras was leader of the most right-wing faction that came out of the same political tradition of Eamon Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte. And Tsipras has proven that he is no different to Kenny, Merkel, Cameron et al in imposing massive austerity on working class people - is it any wonder then that he engages in the same cronyism as the neo-liberal political cheerleaders.

kbannon wrote: »

I guess to prove me wrong, is anyone aware of a public advert of employment for a position within either SF or the socialist party?
They employ people. They pay them. How did they recruit them?

The Socialist Party advertise internally for any positions that arise. The positions within the Socialist Party are all political positions and those who take them up must be willing to act in line with Socialist Party policies and engage as political activists for the Socialist Party.

Deleted User wrote: »

However none of the parties of the left ever answer any of the questions regarding their policies and their knock on effects. Their basic economic literacy is in question, and they refuse to step up to defend it.
What makes you think that parties that refuse to defend their policies out of government, would be a bastion of transparency in government?

Which party is promising this? Please read my previous point regarding the defense of policies and costings and bear that in mind.

I have explained this before -

You want to debate and discuss the economic policies of a socialist party on the basis of capitalism - this is not possible. You want to discuss 'costings' etc but these are 'costings' on the basis of capitalism and the implementation of capitalist policies. By its very nature a socialist party is anti-capitalist - the economic policies of a socialist party are based not on capitalism but on a democratically planned socialised economy. Trying to ram a capitalist framework into a socialised economy is trying to ram a square peg into a round hole - it can't be done.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again making an unfounded claim.

To demonstrate the approach of the Socialist Party - in the past the Socialist Party has appointed representatives to various government bodies e.g. the Forum for Europe. The FfE for example was a talk shop that was used as a slush fund for party hacks for FF/FG/LP with expenses of up to €1000 for a two hour meeting. The Socialist Party representative, following Socialist Party rules, was not allowed to benefit financially from being on this forum and submitted all unvouched for expenses to the Socialist Party while the other political representatives (and the reps of many other bodies) simply pocketed the expenses.

Now people - I'm off to bed - I have a hard days work tomorrow.

oscarBravo

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

...when you are prohibited from lining your pocket what is the incentive...

...to do anything at all?

jank

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The only people who have ever claimed that Tsipras was leading a 'far left' government was the likes of Merkel and her cronies.Tsipras was leader of the most right-wing faction that came out of the same political tradition of Eamon Gilmore and Pat Rabbitte. And Tsipras has proven that he is no different to Kenny, Merkel, Cameron et al in imposing massive austerity on working class people - is it any wonder then that he engages in the same cronyism as the neo-liberal political cheerleaders.

Hmmm, 6 months ago he was held up as a left wing socialist, a true socialist by many left wing parties and their fanboys.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alexis-tsipras-sinn-fein-syriza-1902930-Jan2015/
http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-paul-murphy-twitter-spat-2212206-Jul2015/

Now, since he has done a deal, well he is just another cog in that good ol' neo-liberal conspiracy.

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

Rather defeatist. Might as well elect FF again so.

FF made a lot of mistakes, but it must be said that they also operated in a global culture of making those mistakes - it wasn't FF in this country, in isolation. Banks around the world were all gaming the system to maximise profits and there was little to no global dissent.

It's more than slightly unfair to blame FF for the entire financial crisis IMO. Particularly when you get down to it, FF appears to continue to have more sound economic core values than Labour or FG.

FF made a key mistake by not immediately reacting when the US financial system started to crumble 2 years before the shockwave hit here. Hubris was a mistake by FF - thinking Ireland would be isolated from a global meltdown is negligent. Greed was a mistake by FF - but there is little to no evidence that any other party would have been less greedy.

Jolly Red Giant

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

I have explained this before -

You want to debate and discuss the economic policies of a socialist party on the basis of capitalism - this is not possible. You want to discuss 'costings' etc but these are 'costings' on the basis of capitalism and the implementation of capitalist policies. By its very nature a socialist party is anti-capitalist - the economic policies of a socialist party are based not on capitalism but on a democratically planned socialised economy. Trying to ram a capitalist framework into a socialised economy is trying to ram a square peg into a round hole - it can't be done.

You might think that that explains something, but it does not. In a socialist society, mathematics still applies.

I'm more than comfortable discussing the costings and workings of a socialist economy and society within a socialist framework.

So lets hear them. Let's get into the socialist ideal and talk it through from that perspective.
--
On a separate note, I asked what the point of electing the representatives are. We do operate in a capitalist environment, and if they are elected to office they are required to operate within that framework. So their policies within the capitalist framework are relevant, and do require costings etc. And so their economic illiteracy is a very important consideration and failing.

jank

jank wrote: »

Hmmm, 6 months ago he was held up as a left wing socialist, a true socialist by many left wing parties and their fanboys.
http://www.thejournal.ie/alexis-tsipras-sinn-fein-syriza-1902930-Jan2015/
http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-paul-murphy-twitter-spat-2212206-Jul2015/
Now, since he has done a deal, well he is just another cog in that good ol' neo-liberal conspiracy.

He must have been a sleeper agent for quite some time!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Tsipras

Tsipras joined the Communist Youth of Greece in the late 1980s.

As a university student, Tsipras joined the ranks of the renascent left-wing movement, particularly the "Enceladus" group,

Tsipras has been leader of the left-wing Syriza party since 2009.

He was first elected to the Hellenic Parliament in 2009, and was the Party of the European Left nominee for President of the European Commission in the 2014 European Parliament election.

johnnyskeleton

jank wrote: »

Hmmm, 6 months ago he was held up as a left wing socialist, a true socialist by many left wing parties and their fanboys.

http://www.thejournal.ie/alexis-tsipras-sinn-fein-syriza-1902930-Jan2015/
http://www.thejournal.ie/leo-varadkar-paul-murphy-twitter-spat-2212206-Jul2015/

Now, since he has done a deal, well he is just another cog in that good ol' neo-liberal conspiracy.

JRG simply said that he was at the right wing end of Syriza/the Centre Left. I suppose that puts him as slightly left of centre etc.

Whether other people thought he was a "true socialist" or otherwise is immaterial. Although Paul Murphy did change his tune on him, if anything that supports a view that he wasn't really as left wing as was originally thought.

johnnyskeleton

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let's be clear - this country was bankrupted by the antics of FF (ably assisted by FG on local councils) in creating a property bubble through massive tax breaks for the spivs and speculators and then socialising their gambling debts.

Since 2008 more than €30billion has been hacked out of the economy - and this is what has 'stifled' the economy - coupled with the fact that the government are paying €8billion a year in interest repayments on the bailout and borrowing another €6billion a year to pay the interest and increasing the debt as a consequence.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

You want to debate and discuss the economic policies of a socialist party on the basis of capitalism - this is not possible. You want to discuss 'costings' etc but these are 'costings' on the basis of capitalism and the implementation of capitalist policies. By its very nature a socialist party is anti-capitalist - the economic policies of a socialist party are based not on capitalism but on a democratically planned socialised economy. Trying to ram a capitalist framework into a socialised economy is trying to ram a square peg into a round hole - it can't be done.

I suppose the next logical question then is what would happen if a socialist party was elected in the morning? They would be inheriting a system whereby marginal income tax rates were high, welfare was running at c. €20bn p.a. and with a significant, but diminishing budget deficit etc

Were they to inherit a healthy economy there would be no question but that they would spend money for people's benefit or to invest in the economy, but what corrective steps would they take to mend the capitalist system that has been decimated by FF/FG/Lab.

Clearly socialists would not inflate a property boom, nor would they socialise bank debts. So we know what socialists would do in the event of the next financial crisis.

And if the ultimate goal is a sort of utopian society where money is abolished because private property is unnecessary, I can see how at that stage we would no longer need to think in capitalist terms.

But what steps they would take to turn captialism into socialism is the part I can't get my head around.

Let's take the homeless situation. Suppose the main promise/issue in the election was to do something about the lack of social housing, and either €500m is required to buy land and pay for workers/materials, or say 5 acres of land, 3,000 workers and 100 tonnes of building supplies are needed to implement this policy. How is it achieved:

1) do you borrow money speicifically for it?
2) do you increase tax or impose a new tax to cover it?
3) do you ask for voluntary donations from people?
4) do you take the money from another area e.g. social welfare budget?
5) do you just spend it and the deficit increases?
6) do you seize the land and goods from the burgeoise and threaten the workers with jail unless they comply?

I appreciate that you can't necessarily speak about socialism in capitalist terms, but then surely you must explain how things would work under your view of socialism and how you would get the ball rolling?

jank

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

JRG simply said that he was at the right wing end of Syriza/the Centre Left. I suppose that puts him as slightly left of centre etc.

Whether other people thought he was a "true socialist" or otherwise is immaterial. Although Paul Murphy did change his tune on him, if anything that supports a view that he wasn't really as left wing as was originally thought.

It is indicative of this type of thinking we see from the 'true' left. The socialist party of France, who are in power are not 'true' Socialists, Labour party are not a true party of the left, Syriza were a party of the left and hailed as one, but now they are just like all the other right wing parties. If you are not with us, you are against us.

A black and white binary view of the world, economics and politics.

When one points to parties of the left and critiques them on past performances, economic under achievement and cronyism, the 'no true scotts-man fallacy' card is used. The term 'oh, if WE go into power, it will be different... cause we are TRUE socialists'..
Reminds of religious fanatics proclaiming the perpetual end of the world due to God's wrath and displeasure, an annual event at this stage. Maybe next time they will be right.

johnnyskeleton

jank wrote: »

It is indicative of this type of thinking we see from the 'true' left. The socialist party of France, who are in power are not 'true' Socialists, Labour party are not a true party of the left, Syriza were a party of the left and hailed as one, but now they are just like all the other right wing parties. If you are not with us, you are against us.

A black and white binary view of the world, economics and politics.

When one points to parties of the left and critiques them on past performances, economic under achievement and cronyism, the 'no true scotts-man fallacy' card is used. The term 'oh, if WE go into power, it will be different... cause we are TRUE socialists'..
Reminds of religious fanatics proclaiming the perpetual end of the world due to God's wrath and displeasure, an annual event at this stage. Maybe next time they will be right.

I think people are entitled to say that someone who calls themselves a socialist in one country does not represent a socialist in another country.

In any event, the topic is the AAA and their policies, so let's tone down the generalisations of the "the left".

For Reals

oscarBravo wrote: »

...to do anything at all?

So it's a choice between fraud or sitting on your hands?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FF made a lot of mistakes, but it must be said that they also operated in a global culture of making those mistakes - it wasn't FF in this country, in isolation. Banks around the world were all gaming the system to maximise profits and there was little to no global dissent.

It's more than slightly unfair to blame FF for the entire financial crisis IMO. Particularly when you get down to it, FF appears to continue to have more sound economic core values than Labour or FG.

FF made a key mistake by not immediately reacting when the US financial system started to crumble 2 years before the shockwave hit here. Hubris was a mistake by FF - thinking Ireland would be isolated from a global meltdown is negligent. Greed was a mistake by FF - but there is little to no evidence that any other party would have been less greedy.

And don't forget the lies and ignorance, 'the boom will get boomier' ' go do something to yourself', 'the IMF is not here'.
Not to mention party affiliates who made a killing. I completely disagree that they were in essence fiscally sound and had a bad run. They were making hay and **** the begruders.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You might think that that explains something, but it does not. In a socialist society, mathematics still applies.

I'm more than comfortable discussing the costings and workings of a socialist economy and society within a socialist framework.

So lets hear them. Let's get into the socialist ideal and talk it through from that perspective.
--
On a separate note, I asked what the point of electing the representatives are. We do operate in a capitalist environment, and if they are elected to office they are required to operate within that framework. So their policies within the capitalist framework are relevant, and do require costings etc. And so their economic illiteracy is a very important consideration and failing.

Not one right wing conservative on here has addressed the thread topic. The topic is AAA and their ilk want to keep people in poverty. We endeavor to discuss it we get Team Enda and FF apologists talking about everything but.

Hotblack Desiato

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

There are 2 million people with medical cards because their incomes/living standards are so low as to be on the poverty line.

It's not sustainable or fair to have one half of the country paying through the nose with GP fees, A&E fees etc. AND paying heavy taxes, so the other half can pay little or nothing in tax and get all these services for free as well.

Medical cards are not just for those on the poverty line either - medical cards were restored for the wealthiest cohort of over 70s purely to buy votes, if this was done on the basis of need it would have been for kids with asthma etc. who currently get nothing if their parents are working. This cohort of pensioners are far more well off than the vast majority of working families.

There's also been huge abuse of the system by politicians exerting "pull" and when a lot of the incorrectly issued cards, which people weren't rightly entitled to, were withdrawn there was uproar!

The travel passes apply to OAPs

There are not 1million+ OAPs though

- most of whom are in receipt of the basic state pension and use the travel pass to visit their families. For ten years my father used his travel pass twice a week to travel 60 miles both ways to visit me and his grandchildren - he could never afford a car and at that time I didn't have the money for a car either. If the travel pass didn't exist he would have rarely seen his grandchildren, living alone and not creating the loving memories my children have of their grandfather.

Why would he have needed to buy a car? He could have got the bus which is what he was doing anyway. Having entirely free travel doesn't happen in countries like France or Germany, a discount of 50 or even 75% would mean more farebox coming in, curb abuse, and help keep services viable. Meanwhile fares for those who have to actually pay, have gone through the roof over the last few years.

If it's going to remain entirely free they're going to have to tighten up the criteria a lot, no junkies etc. and no peak time travel, and no jollies up and down the length of the country on Irish Rail just because you can.

Again, something which was a good idea has been extended and abused to the extent where it's becoming entirely unsustainable, because politicians exploit it for votes, refuse to fund it properly and ignore what the future costs are going to be

For Reals

For Reals wrote: »

Not one right wing conservative on here has addressed the thread topic. The topic is AAA and their ilk want to keep people in poverty. We endeavor to discuss it we get Team Enda and FF apologists talking about everything but.

The post you quoted said this

So lets hear them. Let's get into the socialist ideal and talk it through from that perspective.
--
On a separate note, I asked what the point of electing the representatives are. We do operate in a capitalist environment, and if they are elected to office they are required to operate within that framework. So their policies within the capitalist framework are relevant, and do require costings etc. And so their economic illiteracy is a very important consideration and failing.

Shoot. Make the case for the AAA under either the current (capitalist) or their preferred (socialist) framework. Preferably both, as well as the 'in between' as johnnyskeleton so well asked.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quin_Dub

As Ruth Copinger herself once said in an Interview (the one where she suggested Nationalising Dell)..

"True Socialism would only work if everybody does it"

And therein lies the fundamental issue..

Socialism seems like a great idea on paper (and perhaps it actually is is reality too)

However , it requires the complete construction of every last vestige of current societal structures Globally to work..

Given that this will never happen , every unilateral attempt at true socialism will fail utterly and more than likely leave the experimenters worse off than they were to begin with....

walshyn93

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod Note:

If this is a thinly veiled attempt at an Irish Water thread it will be merged with the existing ones.

If your main point is that some political parties encourage or thrive on the poverty trap then maybe you could provide some statistical support for this idea.

I think it would be hard to find statistical support for the argument that Paul Murphy uses poverty as part of his election strategy.

Quin_Dub

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think it would be hard to find statistical support for the argument that Paul Murphy uses poverty as part of his election strategy.

Would Paul Murphy (or indeed any candidate standing on a similar platform) have been elected in an election held 10 years ago during the boom?

Joe Higgins was the sole "true socialist" TD for a very long time and even he lost his seat in the mid naughties as the appetite for his view-point was non-existent.

The reality is that "protest politics" is only popular when people feel like there's something to protest about..

Unemployment , Austerity etc. are things that people feel the need to protest about...

Take those things away and what's left for them to garner support for ?

Clearly Murphy et al don't actively "campaign" for Poverty , but without it they have nothing to rail against , or at least nothing that people will vote for..

So fundamentally , they need certain conditions (bad ones) to prevail from them to be in anyway successful.

Jolly Red Giant

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As Ruth Copinger herself once said in an Interview (the one where she suggested Nationalising Dell).

Ruth Coppinger didn't actually argue for nationalising Dell - but for nationalising the Dell plants in Ireland to prevent Dell removing all the equipment (paid for by the taxpayer) and preventing the loss of at least some of the jobs.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

"True Socialism would only work if everybody does it"

I would love to have a link to that quote

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Socialism seems like a great idea on paper (and perhaps it actually is is reality too)

What we do know is that capitalism today is a crappy idea - even on paper.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

However , it requires the complete construction of every last vestige of current societal structures Globally to work..

Ultimately yes - but it is possible to operate for a period - even a prolonged period - on a state or even a regional basis.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Given that this will never happen ,

The feudal lords of the Middle Ages and the Absolute Monarchs of the Early Modern Period made exactly the same claims about capitalism

Quin_Dub wrote: »

every unilateral attempt at true socialism will fail utterly and more than likely leave the experimenters worse off than they were to begin with....

Here is the problem with your assertion - there is no such thing as 'true socialism' - socialism is a different form of economic superstructure than capitalism - no one can predict how it can develop. Socialism has a basic framework but no more than that - it is up to the working class in a democratically planned socialised economy to determine how society deveops. What socialism offers is an opportunity to advance human society - the potential to use a socialised economy to create a society more productive than capitalism without the contradictions of capitalism or the inequality of class conflict.

Jolly Red Giant

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Would Paul Murphy (or indeed any candidate standing on a similar platform) have been elected in an election held 10 years ago during the boom?

Joe Higgins was the sole "true socialist" TD for a very long time and even he lost his seat in the mid naughties as the appetite for his view-point was non-existent.

The reality is that "protest politics" is only popular when people feel like there's something to protest about..

Unemployment , Austerity etc. are things that people feel the need to protest about...

Take those things away and what's left for them to garner support for ?

Clearly Murphy et al don't actively "campaign" for Poverty , but without it they have nothing to rail against , or at least nothing that people will vote for..

So fundamentally , they need certain conditions (bad ones) to prevail from them to be in anyway successful.

The primary objective of working class people is to have decent job that can provide a roof over their head, enough food to eat, a decent health service when they get sick and a decent education system for their kids.

If capitalism was capable of providing such objectives there would be no socialists and no need for socialists. The problem is that capitalism is a system of bubble and crash. During the bubble a certain percentage will always be left behind - during the crash the vast majority of the population get screwed. It is hardly surprising that a majority of the population are boycotting the water charges - most cannot afford to pay and the rest know that if they left the government away with imposing the charges they won't be able to afford the ever increasing bills. People take to the streets during a crisis and gain confidence when there is an indication of an economy turning to fight back against those who continue to exploit the crisis for personal gain.

Hotblack Desiato

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Socialism has a basic framework but no more than that - it is up to the working class in a democratically planned socialised economy to determine how society deveops.

That never happens though, does it? You always end up with the localised version of single-list 'elections' and the KGB, while the new class of 'socialist elite' lords it over them and buys their imported luxury goods in the hard currency shops.

What socialism offers is an opportunity to advance human society - the potential to use a socialised economy to create a society more productive than capitalism without the contradictions of capitalism or the inequality of class conflict.

Socialist societies have always had absolutely appalling productivity, if your basic needs are satisfied (i.e. you probably won't starve) there is no incentive to work harder when you won't gain from it.

Jolly Red Giant

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That never happens though, does it? You always end up with the localised version of single-list 'elections' and the KGB, while the new class of 'socialist elite' lords it over them and buys their imported luxury goods in the hard currency shops.

Says you - I disagree.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Socialist societies have always had absolutely appalling productivity, if your basic needs are satisfied (i.e. you probably won't starve) there is no incentive to work harder when you won't gain from it.

yada yada - there has never been a 'socialist society' and never a democratically planned socialised economy.

Just because you believe Stalinism was socialism does not make it so.

jimmycrackcorm

Jolly Red Giant wrote:

The primary objective of working class people is to have decent job that can provide a roof over their head, enough food to eat, a decent health service when they get sick and a decent education system for their kids.

Why isn't an objective or working class people to improve their lot through continuing education? A lot of period people I work with do masters or degrees by night to progress. Unless by working class you mean coronation street viewers.

Jolly Red Giant wrote:

If capitalism was capable of providing such objectives there would be no socialists and no need for socialists. The problem is that capitalism is a system of bubble and crash. During the bubble a certain percentage will always be left behind - during the crash the vast majority of the population get screwed. It is hardly surprising that a majority of the population are boycotting the water charges - most cannot afford to pay and the rest know that if they left the government away with imposing the charges they won't be able to afford the ever increasing bills. People take to the streets during a crisis and gain confidence when there is an indication of an economy turning to fight back against those who continue to exploit the crisis for personal gain.

You only have to look at the progression that capitalism has brought in recent decades where water protesters can upload to YouTube to understand that there is no other system that can flawlessly bring progress to people.

jank

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think people are entitled to say that someone who calls themselves a socialist in one country does not represent a socialist in another country.

It is all very Peoples Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front. In this case perpetual goal-post moving is part of the course of the debate and should be tolerated and accepted? So why use the word 'Socalist' so. Perhaps they should use the word 'Populist' as no true socialist in my eyes would be against property tax, but there you have it.

To form a basis of what the effects and outcomes of policies by a Socialist/AAA/PBP government would look like you can make a fair judgement by looking at our European neighbors. I think that is entirely fair.

AAA and Sinn Fein in particular used alot of political capital in their support of Syriza when they were elected early on in the year. If political parties releases official photos and memos showing 'solidarity' with other European political organisations, then it is entirely fair then to examine and critique said actions of these other political organisations. It is also entirely fair when AAA distances themselves after the fact, making the entirely predictable political u-turn.

Also, I not lumping all the left into the one bracket, I said 'true' left that AAA and PBP like to call themselves as they think anyone else is right-wing, including Labour, hence the 'true' part. Ironically it is AAA/PBP that generalises the left.

walshyn93

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Would Paul Murphy (or indeed any candidate standing on a similar platform) have been elected in an election held 10 years ago during the boom?

Joe Higgins was the sole "true socialist" TD for a very long time and even he lost his seat in the mid naughties as the appetite for his view-point was non-existent.

The reality is that "protest politics" is only popular when people feel like there's something to protest about..

Unemployment , Austerity etc. are things that people feel the need to protest about...

Take those things away and what's left for them to garner support for ?

Clearly Murphy et al don't actively "campaign" for Poverty , but without it they have nothing to rail against , or at least nothing that people will vote for..

So fundamentally , they need certain conditions (bad ones) to prevail from them to be in anyway successful.

You took me up the wrong way. I said it would be hard to find "statistics" to back up the argument which is undeniably true nontheless

Hotblack Desiato

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Says you - I disagree.

Citation needed...

yada yada - there has never been a 'socialist society' and never a democratically planned socialised economy.

...oh wait.

Now why on earth is that? Is it because people do not vote for such a society, or because those in charge of such societies always are (or turn into) authoritarian dictators?

In the AAA's ideal world, where everyone is equal, there would be no entrepreneurs. Why should they give their ideas and hard work away for a pittance? Why should the rewards of their hard work ethic be shared with layabouts?

http://antiausterityalliance.ie/about/

What We Stand For

• Abolition of the Property/Home Tax. No to Water taxes, metering & to privatisation and profiting from water.
  
• Defend our council and public services. No more cuts or erosion of worker’s pay and conditions.
  
• Our Councillors will not go into coalitions or make deals with the austerity Parties
  
• (FF, FG, LP) and will not participate in junkets or the gravy train.
  
• We support a united movement of all affected by home taxes and austerity. We oppose divisions based on race, nationality, gender or age.
  
• End the bailout of the banks and bondholders. No to all Austerity – ordinary people have paid enough.
  
• Tax the Wealthy as the alternative to austerity: For progressive taxation on the wealthy and corporate sector.
  
• Public investment to create jobs, stop emigration and provide housing and socially useful infrastructure.
  
• Planning for the community, not for developers or vested interests.
  
• For mortgage debt write-down to real house values to keep struggling families in their homes. The banks should be run in the public interest and to assist in economic recovery.
  
• Save our health, education and social services – reverse the cuts and restore staff levels.

Just for reference as to what the AAA stand for.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

http://antiausterityalliance.ie/about/

What We Stand For

• Abolition of the Property/Home Tax. No to Water taxes, metering & to privatisation and profiting from water.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing to replace income
  
• Defend our council and public services. No more cuts or erosion of worker’s pay and conditions.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing to replace income/increased spending
  
• Our Councillors will not go into coalitions or make deals with the austerity Parties
• (FF, FG, LP) and will not participate in junkets or the gravy train.
  
  = Sound bite..
  
• We support a united movement of all affected by home taxes and austerity. We oppose divisions based on race, nationality, gender or age.
  
  No Idea what that means, truly..."United movement of all affected by Austerity" ? What?
  
• End the bailout of the banks and bondholders. No to all Austerity – ordinary people have paid enough.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing costs
  
• Tax the Wealthy as the alternative to austerity: For progressive taxation on the wealthy and corporate sector.
  
  = Dead Cat bounce - Short term gain in tax income followed by steady and continuous decline as that money exits the economy for other jurisdictions
  
• Public investment to create jobs, stop emigration and provide housing and socially useful infrastructure.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing
  
• Planning for the community, not for developers or vested interests.
  
  = Not quite sure here , I assume they mean lots and lots of social-housing - not necessarily a bad thing, but again increased Government borrowing
  
• For mortgage debt write-down to real house values to keep struggling families in their homes. The banks should be run in the public interest and to assist in economic recovery.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing costs
  
• Save our health, education and social services – reverse the cuts and restore staff levels.
  
  = Increased Government borrowing
  

Just for reference as to what the AAA stand for.

So - Basically the plan is to increase the cost of Government in multiple ways, with only a single "new" way of funding that cost.. And that new way is by taxing the most mobile and volatile element of the economy - The "1%ers" and Large MNC's...

Ok...

Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing] -> Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing] -> Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing] -> Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing] -> Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing] -> Take out loads of loans -> Spend all the money -> Default on the debt -> [something missing]..............

Permabear

This post has been deleted.