Good point by Gilmore this Morning

Zynks · 30-09-2010 10:01AM #1

He was asking why is the largest bill to ever be presented to the Dail being given only until 3.30 today to be discussed. He suggests that this should be discussed for as long as it takes until 'every single member of the house had a chance to talk about it'.
Cowen responded that he will extend to to 6 or 6.30.... I can't believe that 10 years of pain for this country don't deserve more from our representatives consideration in the view of our '''''leader''''' (double inverted commas was not enough)

amacachi · 30-09-2010 10:03AM

I don't see the need for debate, we know the FF TDs will do as they're told as will a couple of independents.

Permabear · 30-09-2010 10:10AM

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie · 30-09-2010 10:13AM

Zynks wrote: »

He was asking why is the largest bill to ever be presented to the Dail being given only until 3.30 today to be discussed. He suggests that this should be discussed for as long as it takes until 'every single member of the house had a chance to talk about it'.
Cowen responded that he will extend to to 6 or 6.30.... I can't believe that 10 years of pain for this country don't deserve more from our representatives consideration in the view of our '''''leader''''' (double inverted commas was not enough)

Given the original decision making "process" over the bank guarantee, perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that the government deigns to discuss the public's finances IN PUBLIC, even if only during daylight hours. :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton · 30-09-2010 10:49PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They don't refuse to cut.

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

So I don't blame Labour for not saying where the cuts will come from just yet. They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

Manach · 30-09-2010 11:01PM

Could we not then persaude Labour to share their plan to balance the country's finances at some stage if at all possible whilst we still have an economy?

dvpower · 30-09-2010 11:01PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They don't refuse to cut.

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

So I don't blame Labour for not saying where the cuts will come from just yet. They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

Let me get this straight.
Labour have some fantastic solutions, so good that they are keeping them under wraps because FF, if they got wind of them, would implement them and claim credit for the inevitable improvement in our fortunes. Labour are so selfish that they would put their own narrow interests above the interests of the country.

You must really hate the Labour party to make such a damning allegation.

thebaldsoprano · 01-10-2010 09:24AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

Is it that sensible though?

I'm a centre-right voter and would seriously consider voting for Labour if they were clearer about their policies. For example in this policy document they seem to recognise that the PS wage bill needs to be addressed, but a few months later delegates voted for the savings in the wage bill to be reversed. If they cleared up their position a bit they may well get more centre-right voters on side. We've already had more than enough of this type of obfuscation from the current Government.

whatawaster · 01-10-2010 09:36AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well Pat Rabbitte let slip on Vincent Brown last night that there will have to be public sector redundancies. A start, i suppose

Eliot Rosewater · 01-10-2010 09:55AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They just, rather sensibly, keep their cards close to their chest because if they say where they will make their cuts FF will just take those ideas, claim them as their own and then leave Labour a hollow shell (as FF always do)..

Hardly. They're keeping their cards close to their chest so as to win as many votes as possible. They didn't take a stance on Croke Park because they want votes from both sides, and to take a side would have resulted in lost votes. Simple.

It's simply populism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They have alluded to general cuts in public sector pay etc.

As another poster pointed out, a Labour convention voted to restore public sector pay. How do you explain that?

Denerick · 01-10-2010 10:39AM

If Labour got into power they will cut and cut hard, just as FF have done. The economics and logistics of it all point to only one solution, and that is layoffs in the public sector. Gilmore is deceitful, he refuses to say what he stands for. This idea that FF will 'steal' their oh-so-wonderful ideas is laughable.

Rubik. · 01-10-2010 10:47AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eamon Gilmore - "we have committed for some time to the necessity for a 3 billion euro adjustment in the public finances for 2011"

Tipp Man · 01-10-2010 10:55AM

Rubik. wrote: »

Eamon Gilmore - "we have committed for some time to the necessity for a 3 billion euro adjustment in the public finances for 2011"

Its easy say it but HOW is he going to do it?

Rubik. · 01-10-2010 10:58AM

Tipp Man wrote: »

Its easy say it but HOW is he going to do it?

Brian Lenihan is refusing to say how he is going to do it.

ressem · 01-10-2010 11:05AM

Vincent Brown got a 'public sector numbers will need to fall' from Pat Rabbit yesterday. But would only commit to trying to get to this through voluntary redundancy.
He was pressed as to where the money for payouts and what people would leave in this climate, but failed to answer.

Zynks · 01-10-2010 11:57AM

Talking about public sector cuts is a bit empty when the banking crisis alone is costing us three full year's entire government (PS, CS) payroll.

Or, if you prefer, the budget deficit excluding banking waste by itself is larger than a full year payroll.

So, even if they fire everyone, incl garda, teachers, health service, admins, etc, there is still a deficit - even BEFORE putting any money into the banks and NAMA.

Discussing public service wages is minor compared to the big picture. I have no idea how we can get out of this one, and wish we stop spending time supporting the divide and conquer BS...

Denerick · 01-10-2010 12:18PM

The banking thing is spread out over a number of years. In some ways we might potentially recoup some of the losses should we rebound (Yes, I'm bracing myself for a backlash here

) However our structural deficit is arguably the bigger issue in terms of our public spending. So long as we take in 30 pounds but spend 50 pounds we're going to have a problem, banks or no banks.

Eliot Rosewater · 01-10-2010 04:17PM

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Liam Byrne · 01-10-2010 06:44PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Fair point, but at least we get SOMETHING in return for the public service pay.

Zynks · 01-10-2010 06:46PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

When (if) you give money to a beggar or a child, or charity, do you think 'ah well, I make €x,000, I might as well give him/her €x00'? Or, more likely, do you keep things separate because they are totally unrelated?

Last time I checked, we were paying taxes to fund services, infrastructure and social welfare, not to subsidise stupid gambles by third parties that went horribly wrong.

And be careful with attacking things and people that could be 'you tomorrow'.

I lost my job of 10 years last week, after paying over 200k in taxes over that period. I know there are cuts coming on my 'entitlements', and I can deal with that, but to compare what will be paid to me with what is being done for the banks is at the very least offensive.

And as for your €50 bn, add to that 35 bn in interest @ 7% p.a.

Citizen_Cutback · 01-10-2010 06:48PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

^^Indeed.

Over the next 10 years pubic service pay and social welfare will cost €400 billion (at current rates).

The bank bailout will cost, what, €50 billion?

Thinking long term (and if the Celtic tiger has thought us one thing it's that we should think long term) the cost of public services will dwarf the bank bailouts.

Perhaps you could also tell us the Opportunity Cost of this €50 billion "rescue" of our Banking system.

I notice you don't bother to allow for interest payments while we "slow burn" the €50 billion over 10 years.

The money paid on Social Welfare is circulated within the economy as are the salaries paid to Public Servants.

The Bank Bailout is just destroying money.

Denerick · 01-10-2010 07:05PM

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

Zynks · 01-10-2010 07:12PM

Denerick wrote: »

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

and how exactly do you suggest that 'a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed'? Please, I really need to hear that explanation!

Denerick · 01-10-2010 07:19PM

Zynks wrote: »

and how exactly do you suggest that 'a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed'? Please, I really need to hear that explanation!

A load of people with PHDs are always telling me crazy shít is going to happen if the banking system collapses. I'm more inclined to side with them than an anonymous boardsie

Zynks · 01-10-2010 07:29PM

Denerick wrote: »

A load of people with PHDs are always telling me crazy shít is going to happen if the banking system collapses. I'm more inclined to side with them than an anonymous boardsie

And who are these PHDs? What is the crazy stuff they say? Do you have any reference to back this up? Does letting Anglo Irish die equate to banking system collapse?

Common Denerick, substantiate your comment. We have been getting far too much scaremongering like what you are saying, and very little substance in the last two years. Can you substantiate?

Citizen_Cutback · 01-10-2010 07:34PM

Denerick wrote: »

'The bank bailout is burning money' - that may be the case, at least superficially, but I think a lot more money would be burnt if the banking system simply collapsed. If you have a credible alternative that would be recognised by any major economist and/or international institution I'd love to hear it! (As would Brian Lenihen...)

Typical Fianna Fail attitude...

I have just stated a fact the the Bank Bailout is effectively burning money.

I do not need to give you an alternative to this course of action being undertaken by the current Fianna Fail administration.

Lenihan has been found out for the "spoofer" he is.

Maybe you should address your questions to the Government advisor Alan Ahearne...

but he doesn't seem to be available to his explain how his ecomomic stupidity is destroying our economy!

Ahearne is now making McWilliams look good!

Denerick · 01-10-2010 07:38PM

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

Citizen_Cutback · 01-10-2010 07:42PM

Denerick wrote: »

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

You presume too much!

Zynks · 01-10-2010 07:43PM

Denerick wrote: »

If the banking system collapses, what happens to the deposits? the credit system? Our borrowing rates? I suppose we should just 'let it fall'. Great. There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

So that is how you intend to SUBSTANTIATE your BS? Sorry, but no time for scaremongering crap. Is that your best shot???

Denerick · 01-10-2010 07:45PM

Zynks wrote: »

So that is how you intend to SUBSTANTIATE your BS? Sorry, but no time for scaremongering crap. Is that your best shot???

OK. Explain to me what happens if the Irish banking system collapses. No obfuscation, straight up. If you were taoiseach tomorrow, would you really pull the plug on the Irish bank bailout?

Draw for us a picture of the likely scenario to follow on from that.

Think it through. 'No to bailouts' is a lovely mass slogan, but its irrelevant in reality unless your willing to outline your alternative strategy.

Liam Byrne · 01-10-2010 07:47PM

Denerick wrote: »

There is a reason why none of you are in politics or academia.

Care to explain that ?

Or is it even more FF-style bull as in "we know best, ye peasants" ?

I know the reason I'm not in politics - it's because I couldn't bear the bull**** that goes on and I'd end up doing a George Lee.

However you didn't know that, so you obviously have your own preconceived notions why.

Good point by Gilmore this Morning

Comments