FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

Truthvader wrote: »

Here you are last September responding to me;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthvader View Post
Willing to stoop to Sinn Fein on the off chance you might get a house though

Anything to stop wasteful spending of tax money on filling the pockets of private rental agencies. Very happy to
__________________
Bowie don't play

Remain of the view that keeping Sinn Fein out is the most valuable thing any of the other parties can do. particularly on behalf of those at the bottom. If Sinn Fein get in it wont be barristers and the like who will suffer it will be those dependant on state aid of one kind or another who find that the state has been taken over by incompetent thugs and as a result the economy has gone down the toilet as all the money in the country flees before the likes of O'Broin or O'Snodaigh steal and squander it while the justice system is corrupted.

Who have Sinn Fein ever looked after save their own criminal element?

Yes, and so what?

Bowie wrote: »

...
An affordable house for working tax payers.

The key thing here is if SF changed their housing policy to mirror FG I wouldn't give them a vote.

Are you living under a rock, (thrown at the RUC during the troubles)?
We've spent almost a decade with incompetent (being nice), FG policy making national crises worse and then FG partner with FF who caused the most recent crash so forgive me if I think your opinion has little to do with the welfare of the Irish public. On partnering with FF, I can say the same about FG.

The local FG TD, (former) grew up in a 'free' house by the way.

Bowie wrote: »

Yes, and so what?

The key thing here is if SF changed their housing policy to mirror FG I wouldn't give them a vote.

Are you living under a rock, (thrown at the RUC during the troubles)?
We've spent almost a decade with incompetent (being nice), FG policy making national crises worse and then FG partner with FF who caused the most recent crash so forgive me if I think your opinion has little to do with the welfare of the Irish public. On partnering with FF, I can say the same about FG.

The local FG TD, (former) grew up in a 'free' house by the way.

Eh............ so

So if they get into power they will continue with their proven history of just taking care of their own thug element

that's "what"

After that, hard to know what to say. You seem to blame FF/FG for all ills. Certainly could have done better but matters such as the most recent crash were international events. Accept that Cowen and Lenihan were conned and bullied by the Banks but do not believe they were dishonest or corrupt. Have no doubt that you will be let down badly by them on the house front - and every other front

No idea what your locak TD's house has to do with anything

Bowie wrote: »

The local FG TD, (former) grew up in a 'free' house by the way.

And this means?

Presumably they moved out when they got a job? We know that there are TDs from other parties creaming 100k and living in council housing.

Bowie wrote: »

You're the one commending FF/FG for trying to block a democratic party. It's for the country, except when it looks like it doesn't suit FF/FG.

What is undemocratic about the overall majority that the current government has?

After the election, all the parties looked around for who might be willing to go into government. All of them discovered sooner or later that Sinn Fein weren't really interested in compromising to go into government. That meant another option had to be found. All on Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein created this government through their stupidity, ignorance and stubbornness.

Truthvader wrote: »

Eh............ so

So if they get into power they will continue with their proven history of just taking care of their own thug element

that's "what"

After that, hard to know what to say. You seem to blame FF/FG for all ills. Certainly could have done better but matters such as the most recent crash were international events. Accept that Cowen and Lenihan were conned and bullied by the Banks but do not believe they were dishonest or corrupt. Have no doubt that you will be let down badly by them on the house front - and every other front

No idea what your locak TD's house has to do with anything

There will likely be some form of FF/FG brand cronyism I'd imagine. Hopefully less making policies that benefit private business to the detriment of the tax payer.

I blame FF/FG for everything they had a hand in creating or exacerbating.
My word, a fuppin 'it was Lehman's' advocate. I should have known. We were well on our way to our own crash, the global one brought it faster and heavier.
I'm a big supporter of building social instead of buying or leasing. A supporter of working tax payers being able to afford rent and in some cases buy. If you can't get your head around that...well, you do think Lehman's did it, so maybe you can't.

To avail of social housing or seek it for that matter you need not be a shinner, you might even be a FG'er.

blanch152 wrote: »

What is undemocratic about the overall majority that the current government has?

After the election, all the parties looked around for who might be willing to go into government. All of them discovered sooner or later that Sinn Fein weren't really interested in compromising to go into government. That meant another option had to be found. All on Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein created this government through their stupidity, ignorance and stubbornness.

The point you didn't understand or missed :rolleyes: is that he thinks keeping SF out is more important than looking after the many crises. That FG care so much they partnered with FF, or are they cool now? I don't buy it's in the public interest for one minute.

What SF did or didn't do seems to change based on the claim of the day.

Bowie wrote: »

The point you didn't understand or missed :rolleyes: is that he thinks keeping SF out is more important than looking after the many crises. That FG care so much they partnered with FF, or are they cool now? I don't buy it's in the public interest for one minute.

What SF did or didn't do seems to change based on the claim of the day.

I didn't get that from him. I think he means keeping Sinn Fein out is the only way to address the crises. Putting them in makes it worse.

Truthvader wrote: »

Here you are last September responding to me;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truthvader View Post
Willing to stoop to Sinn Fein on the off chance you might get a house though

Anything to stop wasteful spending of tax money on filling the pockets of private rental agencies. Very happy to
__________________
Bowie don't play

Remain of the view that keeping Sinn Fein out is the most valuable thing any of the other parties can do. particularly on behalf of those at the bottom. If Sinn Fein get in it wont be barristers and the like who will suffer it will be those dependant on state aid of one kind or another who find that the state has been taken over by incompetent thugs and as a result the economy has gone down the toilet as all the money in the country flees before the likes of O'Broin or O'Snodaigh steal and squander it while the justice system is corrupted.

Who have Sinn Fein ever looked after save their own criminal element?

Sinn Féin look after and contribute to the people of Louth/Donegal more than FF and FG just as im sure areas FF and FG candidates are more welcome and contribute more to the area than SF but to say they help nobody is just nonsense.

Brendan Bendar

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Sinn Féin look after and contribute to the people of Louth/Donegal more than FF and FG just as im sure areas FF and FG candidates are more welcome and contribute more to the area than SF but to say they help nobody is just nonsense.

‘Looks after’ in what way?

Like put them up in houses and stuff?

blanch152 wrote: »

I didn't get that from him. I think he means keeping Sinn Fein out is the only way to address the crises. Putting them in makes it worse.

Well he said, "The most valuable contribution to society they could make". Above tackling current actual proven societal crises.
The 'dem others would be worse' is going the way of 'the law and order party' moniker. SF might break FG's records, (more than the state had ever seen) on child homelessness? Doubtful.

tobsey

Bowie wrote: »

Well he said, "The most valuable contribution to society they could make". Above tackling current actual proven societal crises.
The 'dem others would be worse' is going the way of 'the law and order party' moniker. SF might break FG's records, (more than the state had ever seen) on child homelessness? Doubtful.

You’re blaming FG above for the last crash saying it was coming regardless of Lehman’s, despite FG having no say in government in over a decade that preceded it. If FG were at fault for that then SF are equally as responsible for all the so called crises that got so much worse over the last 10 years according to you.

In contrast, the country was much improved in the time since 2010 until Covid hit, even if there were still areas for improvement. Even after Covid it’ll probably still be better than the end of the last crash.

tobsey wrote: »

You’re blaming FG above for the last crash saying it was coming regardless of Lehman’s, despite FG having no say in government in over a decade that preceded it. If FG were at fault for that then SF are equally as responsible for all the so called crises that got so much worse over the last 10 years according to you.

In contrast, the country was much improved in the time since 2010 until Covid hit, even if there were still areas for improvement. Even after Covid it’ll probably still be better than the end of the last crash.

You're mixing FF up with FG. Easily done TBF.

Also the crises got worse year on year since 2010. Only Covid put a hold on some of them

Anyone know if Leo is OK? He's been very quiet all evening and night?

Wanderer78

dundalkfc10 wrote:

Anyone know if Leo is OK? He's been very quiet all evening and night?

I'm sure Leo's fine

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I'm sure Leo's fine

You serious, you and I both know he's ****ing raging he made a serious error in judgement like that Monday night but hey you win some you lose some

smurgen

FG breaking GDPR for one of their new flashy party propaganda adds for social media.

https://twitter.com/Caramacw/status/1314203766715899908?s=19

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Sinn Féin look after and contribute to the people of Louth/Donegal more than FF and FG just as im sure areas FF and FG candidates are more welcome and contribute more to the area than SF but to say they help nobody is just nonsense.

Sinn Fein look after Slab and the boys and sell fantasy solutions to eejits like the David Bowie poster here who thinks that he will get a cheap house out them

Wanderer78

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

You serious, you and I both know he's ****ing raging he made a serious error in judgement like that Monday night but hey you win some you lose some

leos grand, water off....

Truthvader wrote: »

Sinn Fein look after Slab and the boys and sell fantasy solutions to eejits like the David Bowie poster here who thinks that he will get a cheap house out them

Imagine affordable housing, imagine how much better off the country would be, one highest interest rates in Europe. Worst housing crisis in the History (Less than 1,000 Social Homes built this year, more broken promises) but sure look at least Dundalk are flying the flag in Europe for us

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Imagine affordable housing, imagine how much better off the country would be, one highest interest rates in Europe. Worst housing crisis in the History (Less than 1,000 Social Homes built this year, more broken promises) but sure look at least Dundalk are flying the flag in Europe for us

"Affordable housing" is code for housing at below the market rate. Well and good but someone has to make up the gap. The Sinn Fein lie is that there is no gap so it is magicked away.

If a house is sold at less than market value either the State is paying the difference (which means higher taxes to finance it) or alternatively the difference is cancelled by forcing the owner to sell at below the market price (which is just a more targeted tax aimed at builders or "the rich" or whatever.)

On a superficial level the latter solution appeals most to Sinn Fein as it appeals to their sense of resentment and jealousy at people who work or achieve any success but the result is that those same people stop working and go elsewhere.

A similar experiment has already occurred in the private rental sector where after the introduction of the PRTB small private landlords realised that paying rent was essentially voluntary and many fled the sector. Result; less property to rent so higher rents. Supply and Demand.

Truthvader wrote: »

Sinn Fein look after Slab and the boys and sell fantasy solutions to eejits like the David Bowie poster here who thinks that he will get a cheap house out them

You've been corrected as recent as yesterday. I can only take it that you are incapable of dealing in reality. 'Lehman's did it'

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Imagine affordable housing, imagine how much better off the country would be, one highest interest rates in Europe. Worst housing crisis in the History (Less than 1,000 Social Homes built this year, more broken promises) but sure look at least Dundalk are flying the flag in Europe for us

He's not interested. He's either incapable or unwilling to take the comments of others on board. He's happy to have the tax payer rent and lease off private companies and he thinks the last crash was caused by things completely unrelated to Fianna Fail.

He also doesn't seem to understand what profit margin is.

Truthvader wrote: »

...
If a house is sold at less than market value either the State is paying the difference (which means higher taxes to finance it) or alternatively the difference is cancelled by forcing the owner to sell at below the market price (which is just a more targeted tax aimed at builders or "the rich" or whatever.)

...

What difference and to who? Complete nonsense.
You don't know the difference between cost and profit.
Nobody is forcing anyone to sell a house at below market price. You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Currently we are buying at market rate to use as social.
So the builder/developer is paying costs and making a profit, based on the market rate of the day.

If we built, we'd have to pay costs. We would then be free to sell for profit, but below market rate. Selling for cheaper, but still covering costs and still making a profit. This is very basic stuff.

On the rental side, if we built we would need cover costs and then rent out.
When we buy at market rate we are paying costs plus what ever the profit may be on that given day based on market rates.

To break it down even further:
Build a house for 250,000. You have a house for 250,000.
Buy it off the market, that same house that cost 250,00 might be being sold for 3/400,000.
We could sell that one we built for 250,000 for 300,000 and still turn a profit.

In short, once costs are covered, (wages, materials, taxes etc.) anything the house goes for above that is profit. If you sell it cheaper than the market rate you can still be in profit.

Bowie wrote: »

You've been corrected as recent as yesterday. I can only take it that you are incapable of dealing in reality. 'Lehman's did it'

He's not interested. He's either incapable or unwilling to take the comments of others on board. He's happy to have the tax payer rent and lease off private companies and he thinks the last crash was caused by things completely unrelated to Fianna Fail.

He also doesn't seem to understand what profit margin is.

You were caught out yesterday. Everyone can scroll up and see

Truthvader wrote: »

You were caught out yesterday. Everyone can scroll up and see

Lie. Quote it?

You don't know what profit is and you think FF had no hand in the crash. I mean seriously :rolleyes:

Bowie wrote: »

What difference and to who? Complete nonsense.
You don't know the difference between cost and profit.
Nobody is forcing anyone to sell a house at below market price. You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Currently we are buying at market rate to use as social.
So the builder/developer is paying costs and making a profit, based on the market rate of the day.

If we built, we'd have to pay costs. We would then be free to sell for profit, but below market rate. Selling for cheaper, but still covering costs and still making a profit. This is very basic stuff.

On the rental side, if we built we would need cover costs and then rent out.
When we buy at market rate we are paying costs plus what ever the profit may be on that given day based on market rates.

To break it down even further:
Build a house for 250,000. You have a house for 250,000.
Buy it off the market, that same house that cost 250,00 might be being sold for 3/400,000.
We could sell that one we built for 250,000 for 300,000 and still turn a profit.

In short, once costs are covered, (wages, materials, taxes etc.) anything the house goes for above that is profit. If you sell it cheaper than the market rate you can still be in profit.

Oh dear, oh dear, you post up the same rubbish that has been torn apart time and again.

The state does not have bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and electricians employed in the Department of Housing who can sail out tomorrow and build houses. Therefore the State has to tender for houses to be built.

So the State puts out a tender. Developers respond to the tender. A developer will say, I can build a house myself for 200k and sell it for 250k making 50k profit for myself. So I will tender for the government to build houses for 250k because then I will get the same profit. That is how the system works. No developer would ever tender for 200k because they would make nothing for themselves. The only companies capable of responding to the tender are developers. Your proposal doesn't save a penny.

Bowie wrote: »

What difference and to who? Complete nonsense.
You don't know the difference between cost and profit.
Nobody is forcing anyone to sell a house at below market price. You seem to have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Currently we are buying at market rate to use as social.
So the builder/developer is paying costs and making a profit, based on the market rate of the day.

If we built, we'd have to pay costs. We would then be free to sell for profit, but below market rate. Selling for cheaper, but still covering costs and still making a profit. This is very basic stuff.

On the rental side, if we built we would need cover costs and then rent out.
When we buy at market rate we are paying costs plus what ever the profit may be on that given day based on market rates.

To break it down even further:
Build a house for 250,000. You have a house for 250,000.
Buy it off the market, that same house that cost 250,00 might be being sold for 3/400,000.
We could sell that one we built for 250,000 for 300,000 and still turn a profit.

In short, once costs are covered, (wages, materials, taxes etc.) anything the house goes for above that is profit. If you sell it cheaper than the market rate you can still be in profit.

This is infantile

If "we" build, "we" pay. "We " is the taxpayer - ie everyone bar Dessie Ellis and Violet Ann.

As above higher taxes

Bowie wrote: »

Lie. Quote it?

You don't know what profit is and you think FF had no hand in the crash. I mean seriously :rolleyes:

??????????

Scroll up -on all points.

Jeeezzzus

[Deleted User]

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Anyone know if Leo is OK? He's been very quiet all evening and night?

Not near as quiet as MaryLou.

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear, you post up the same rubbish that has been torn apart time and again.

The state does not have bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and electricians employed in the Department of Housing who can sail out tomorrow and build houses. Therefore the State has to tender for houses to be built.

So the State puts out a tender. Developers respond to the tender. A developer will say, I can build a house myself for 200k and sell it for 250k making 50k profit for myself. So I will tender for the government to build houses for 250k because then I will get the same profit. That is how the system works. No developer would ever tender for 200k because they would make nothing for themselves. The only companies capable of responding to the tender are developers. Your proposal doesn't save a penny.

Has it? I recall yourself trying to divert with the same absolute nonsense alright.
What private developer/builder keeps a team of bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and electricians on salary?
We would hire a developer to build. He would give a price, we would pay it. This would be the costs Blanch.
When you need a plumber, do you keep one on salary or hire when needed?
If you ask someone to build you a house they will either accept the job and give you a price, or they won't.

FG leprechaun economics at play

Maybe that's how FG do it, that would explain a lot.
The tender process requires a detailed costing of materials, labour etc., (I know not FG's strong point, see NCH).
If they factored in what profit they might get selling themselves they'd be told where to go.
The developer would give a price including his/her fee. Everybody gets paid, the state gets a house.

Back to our friend you keep mansplainin' for. He says:

If a house is sold at less than market value either the State is paying the difference (which means higher taxes to finance it) or alternatively the difference is cancelled by forcing the owner to sell at below the market price (which is just a more targeted tax aimed at builders or "the rich" or whatever.)

What difference? Selling at profit is selling at profit once costs are covered.

Who is being forced to sell at below market price?

Chap thinks FF had nothing to do with the crash. Hitched your wagon to a dud Blanch.