McMurphy wrote: » Margaret Cash is on fifty five bazillion million a year tax free due to measures introduced over the years by successive FFG Govts, neither of which are proposing to cap or reduce these measures, SF don't have any plans either, but it's all SFs fault regardless.
Granny15 wrote: » That’s it doctor the official figures in every news and media outlet in the country. It’s all a conspiracy and everybody is making them up because it doesn’t suit your agenda or political views. Argue the point in question with me without moving the goalposts
Blaze420 wrote: » You are prime SF material alright, you’ve swallowed the bull**** 10k homeless figure hook line and sinker. How many rough sleepers are there in Ireland I.e genuine homeless? 300 maybe 350? And conveniently ignoring the myriad of reasons those people remain on the streets. Nobody is getting parted with their cash and anybody promising such things is telling you mighty big lies.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I don't think it's very moralistic to ignore economic realism to promise a pipedream. It didn't work out well for Pearses beloved Sryzia in Greece.
Granny15 wrote: » It’s not a pipe dream. The haves will have to part with their beloved money and give to the poor unfortunates rough sleeping. What’s unrealistic about that? I’ll tell you what those in the money are bitterly holding onto every cent despite their overtures about them being generous and giving back. They hoard all their money and care less about the unfortunates literally begging them for mercy and a few cents
JohnnyFlash wrote: » Lot of anger here today.
Blaze420 wrote: » A lot like your vote for SF is going to be in the end, enjoy!
Granny15 wrote: » Oh no we SF voters aren’t in the corrupt Me Fein majority. Or should I say with the most seats. At least we have morals unlike the economic realists and money money money everything FGers.
McMurphy wrote: » I could reread your post a thousand times, but it wouldn't make what you posted any the less scutter.
Blaze420 wrote: » The Social Democrats??? Are you for real?
Blaze420 wrote: » Go look at SF policies particularly on housing and then read my post again. You could do with going up the yard yourself and learning some ****ing comprehension skills
McMurphy wrote: » Oh dear. So, despite the welfare recipients receiving what they receive due to ffg introduced measures, it's SF who is catering for them? You're talking through your hoop, and it appears you aren't too impressed on being pulled up on it either. The yard beckons. Get up it.
Blaze420 wrote: » Where did I say it’s SF fault? Can you read?
Blaze420 wrote: » i don’t think there is any issue with perspective when vermin like her are pulling in 55k+ a year in benefits without lifting a finger, for laying on their back popping out future parasites that will grow up to be just like them. That’s the class of people SF are catering to and they can **** off.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Where? You're making it up. TBF, no party advocates for people choosing not to work. The way I see it is FG want to bend over backwards for business, the bigger the better and the tax payer get get f***ed. For me dole chancers don't even come into the discussion. They are way down the list after waste on projects, leasing apartments for use as social housing, the crises in housing, health, homelessness, low tax for vulture funds etc. I think we are long over due a change. I'll take a chance on SD/SF etc.
Blaze420 wrote: » You’re not getting my point - why should it continue as is? What is SF going to do about it? From what I’ve seen they want to further enable these scumbags to sit on their holes all day - they have nothing to offer people who have worked hard over the years.
McMurphy wrote: » So, let's get something straight. Margaret Cash is on city five bajillion a year tax free due to measures introduced over the years by successive FFG Govts, neither of which are proposing to cap or reduce these measures, SF don't have any plans either, but it's all SFs fault regardless. You sir, can get up the yard.
Blaze420 wrote: » Nobody, that’s the problem.
marieholmfan wrote: » Bizarre that Paddy McKee is unaware that One of the most important jobs that any woman can do is rear her children .
Edgware wrote: » Probably the Celtic jersey wearing gob****es who objected to foreign games in Croke Park
Matt Barrett wrote: » You're just waffling now. FG/FF are paying for her house, hotels and leasing apartments for 25 years in some cases. But go on, SF something...
Blaze420 wrote: » Yeah and SF want to shake the magic money tree to build free houses for people exactly like her? Where is the party calling for an end to welfare increases, or capping child benefit at 2 kids? There is none and SF in particular are simply saying **** these people want to hear.
Blaze420 wrote: » https://mobile.twitter.com/cllrpaddymckee/status/1050095981834973191?lang=en There’s the breakdown, and apologies it’s only 51k not 55....
Matt Barrett wrote: » But those sort of people are tax paying workers. Can you clarify what you meant by 'welfare class'?
McMurphy wrote: » Which party is calling for this? Take your time.
efanton wrote: » I find it hard to believe that anyone on social welfare would be getting 55k+ a year, but I would be happy for you to prove me wrong. I have no problem with anyone claiming benefit if they are entitled to it, I find it hard to believe though that an amount like that would be paid. Social welfare should provide for a modest standard of living for those that cant provide for themselves. That's its purpose. If its found that excessive payments are being made surely that is a problem of government and the minister responsible. But why are you claiming it a SF problem. Its obviously not a Sinn Fein problem because they are not in government and the ones making payment to this woman. If you are correct about the €55k what are FG doing about it?
