‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

hatrickpatrick · 28-10-2011 04:00PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

You are aware parties that put forward these polices were by and large rejected in the last election.

Labour ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129085882819250490.html

Fine Gael ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=3295

Anyone who voted for either party for these reasons has been robbed of their vote.

steve9859 · 28-10-2011 05:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Labour ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129085882819250490.html

Fine Gael ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=3295

Anyone who voted for either party for these reasons has been robbed of their vote.

That is a little extreme. Burning bondholders or not, everyone knew theses were establishment parties that were going to largely carry on the austerity that had already been put in place. But there were clear non-establishment options proposing much more extreme reform and completely alternative policy, but they got absolutely no traction.

They may get more support in the next election, should things be no better in 5 years and your protest carries on, but to be quite honest I don't think they will.

(For the record, I actually argued as much as I could on boards at the time, that both parties were spoofing, and that burning bondholders within the European context at the time, just wasn't going to happen. It doesn't seem to have done Labour too much damage - a President and a new TD today!)

PeadarCo · 28-10-2011 05:17PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Labour ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129085882819250490.html

Fine Gael ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=3295

Anyone who voted for either party for these reasons has been robbed of their vote.

Fair point but I don't feel robbed of my vote. I never expected and don't expect them to unless they have no other option and are in a similar to Greeces current situtation. Anyone who read around the subject would have known that would only happen in the worst case scenario and thus unlikely barring a change in the economic scene.

But my point still stands most of the protesters demands were rejected. Also I think it is a bit much to say just because they didn't follow through on one policy out of a large number. There were plently other reasons to vote for both parties. People can vote for the same party but for different reasons. I wouldn't agree with every policy of Fine Gael and Labour and neither would every person who voted for those parties. But based on the last election those two parties reflect the current wishs of the people who voted. They might not reflect each individuals wishes perfectly but hey thats how parties and people develop new polices.

hmmm · 28-10-2011 05:44PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Fair point but I don't feel robbed of my vote. I never expected and don't expect them to unless they have no other option and are in a similar to Greeces current situtation. Anyone who read around the subject would have known that would only happen in the worst case scenario and thus unlikely barring a change in the economic scene.

Well there's the point summed up. Anyone with a financial clue would have realised that what FG & Labour were promising was unlikely to be possible, yet some people still voted for them on that basis.

Yet davoxx thinks that a participative democracy, where the people would get to vote on similar choices about technical issues, would somehow be better. Despite it being plainly obvious that the electorate are not financial, planning, regulatory, legal and medical experts.

And hatrick thinks that we should be able to impeach governments if they don't live up to their promises. Instead of arguing that people should be more careful about who they elect in the first place, leaving aside the point that no government in the history of the world anywhere has ever been able to live up to their promises.

hatrickpatrick · 28-10-2011 05:57PM

hmmm wrote: »

Well there's the point summed up. Anyone with a financial clue would have realised that what FG & Labour were promising was unlikely to be possible,

And what I'm arguing is that this is unacceptably undemocratic, gaining votes from people who don't understand the full situation by making bollocks statements which you know aren't true.

yet some people still voted for them on that basis.

Not everyone is an economist.

Yet davoxx thinks that a participative democracy, where the people would get to vote on similar choices about technical issues, would somehow be better. Despite it being plainly obvious that the electorate are not financial, planning, regulatory, legal and medical experts.

It wouldn't be ideal but it would certainly be the lesser of two evils, the other evil being the current status quo of 5 years ot TOTAL unaccountability and powerlessness for the individual citizen.

And hatrick thinks that we should be able to impeach governments if they don't live up to their promises. Instead of arguing that people should be more careful about who they elect in the first place, leaving aside the point that no government in the history of the world anywhere has ever been able to live up to their promises.

Then they shouldn't make them. As I said, there wasn't a whole lot of choice in the last general election and the choices which were there DID lie to us.

I'm more forgiving about promises which are later found to be impossible. That is totally different from Gilmore knowingly lying for the sake of getting votes on the back of something he knew he would vote differently on when it came up. That is despicable and totally unacceptable. It's undemocratic and it shouldn't be allowed.

CrystalLettuce · 28-10-2011 07:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The protesters are not "hard left". There are certainly "Hard left" representing there but there are also a lot of "soft left" and centrists there. If you got yourself out of your comfy armchair and actually went to the talks held at these camps you'd see that while the movement tends towards the left in general, it is not just some "hard left" thing, and it is intellectually lazy to declare it so(not that this is much of a change for you).

hmmm · 28-10-2011 07:46PM

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

If you got yourself out of your comfy armchair and actually went to the talks held at these camps you'd see that while the movement tends towards the left in general, it is not just some "hard left" thing, and it is intellectually lazy to declare it so(not that this is much of a change for you).

Who is deciding what the talks are going to be? Is there any topics for discussion that would be described as "right wing" or "conservative"? Most of this country votes for right wing and conservative parties, are they represented?

20Cent · 28-10-2011 07:52PM

hmmm wrote: »

Who is deciding what the talks are going to be? Is there any topics for discussion that would be described as "right wing" or "conservative"? Most of this country votes for right wing and conservative parties, are they represented?

Anyone can walk up to a general assembly and say whatever they like at 1 and 6 pm everyday. Maybe the Irish right wing should get involved or start their own thing instead of slagging it off.

hmmm · 28-10-2011 08:32PM

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone can walk up to a general assembly and say whatever they like at 1 and 6 pm everyday. Maybe the Irish right wing should get involved or start their own thing instead of slagging it off.

1 and 6pm every day? Sorry we're at work paying taxes at that time.

20Cent · 28-10-2011 08:59PM

hmmm wrote: »

1 and 6pm every day? Sorry we're at work paying taxes at that time.

7 days a week?
Who is we?

PeadarCo · 28-10-2011 09:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And what I'm arguing is that this is unacceptably undemocratic, gaining votes from people who don't understand the full situation by making bollocks statements which you know aren't true.

Not everyone is an economist.

It wouldn't be ideal but it would certainly be the lesser of two evils, the other evil being the current status quo of 5 years ot TOTAL unaccountability and powerlessness for the individual citizen.

Then they shouldn't make them. As I said, there wasn't a whole lot of choice in the last general election and the choices which were there DID lie to us.

I'm more forgiving about promises which are later found to be impossible. That is totally different from Gilmore knowingly lying for the sake of getting votes on the back of something he knew he would vote differently on when it came up. That is despicable and totally unacceptable. It's undemocratic and it shouldn't be allowed.

They did lie but it wasn't as if you needed to be an economist to work it out. All you had to do was be reasonably in tune what was going on. For a democracy to work properly there is a responsibility on voters to ensure that they are reasonably up to speed on the key issues in the election or vote. The problem with people voting on technical issues at the moment at least is that some don't make the effort to get some level of an informed view. If people want to vote on technical issues then they may need some level of expert knowledge or at least be very informed. But given that in the current system all they need to know is an enough to call someones bluff on basiclly a menu of choices and some people appear unwilling/unable to do this, what hope have they got when they actually need to go out and inform themselves heavily on a large number of different and complex issues.

As for choice at the last election there was decent range. The stances of say the ULA and Fine Gael were very different on a large number of issues and that is before independents are considered. And if you don't think theres enough set up your own party or run as an independent. I may not agree with your policies but at the very least you give more options and ideas which is what we want in a democracy.

IRISHREDSTAR · 28-10-2011 09:35PM

Here’s what they should really be demanding -investment in Dublin, 30% of the population live in Dublin half of the tax takes comes from Dublin. The jobs are in Dublin like in all other countries the jobs are in the cities yet for the last 20 years we have been sticking factories and major investments (roads etc.) out in the bog lands where there is no mass of people. 36% of people living in Dublin have a 3rd level education. Yet because of years of country people’s spite and greedy demands Dublin still has no metro or the long overdue rail link to London-Paris.
If we had have invested in Dublin years ago we now would not need to bail out the bank or deal with the IMF.

Suryavarman · 28-10-2011 11:21PM

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

Here’s what they should really be demanding -investment in Dublin, 30% of the population live in Dublin half of the tax takes comes from Dublin. The jobs are in Dublin like in all other countries the jobs are in the cities yet for the last 20 years we have been sticking factories and major investments (roads etc.) out in the bog lands where there is no mass of people. 36% of people living in Dublin have a 3rd level education. Yet because of years of country people’s spite and greedy demands Dublin still has no metro or the long overdue rail link to London-Paris.
If we had have invested in Dublin years ago we now would not need to bail out the bank or deal with the IMF.

Yes because a metro in Dublin is suddenly going to give the banks all the capital they need, cure the budget deficit, get 14% of the country back to work and clear the housing market. :rolleyes:

Suryavarman · 28-10-2011 11:39PM

davoxx wrote: »

it stops me having my right to have my children stay with me and raise them how i see fit ...

Your children aren't your property, you don't have a right to raise them as you see fit.

davoxx wrote: »

it is the same thing, just that with boards it's just a poll.
like i said before, the point is not forcing people to vote, but giving them the option ...

and there would be people who would like to do the same for our society ...

With boards it's a poll that has no effect on peoples lives. An actual vote does have an effect on peoples lives.

davoxx wrote: »

no they are reasons why being a politician has become a full time job.

there is no reason what so ever why it could not be a part time job.

The only way being a politician could become a part-time job is by limiting the power of Government.

ed2hands · 29-10-2011 12:15AM

IRISHREDSTAR wrote: »

Here’s what they should really be demanding -investment in Dublin, 30% of the population live in Dublin half of the tax takes comes from Dublin. The jobs are in Dublin like in all other countries the jobs are in the cities yet for the last 20 years we have been sticking factories and major investments (roads etc.) out in the bog lands where there is no mass of people. 36% of people living in Dublin have a 3rd level education. Yet because of years of country people’s spite and greedy demands Dublin still has no metro or the long overdue rail link to London-Paris.
If we had have invested in Dublin years ago we now would not need to bail out the bank or deal with the IMF.

Stop shouting.

CrystalLettuce · 29-10-2011 01:36AM

hmmm wrote: »

Who is deciding what the talks are going to be? Is there any topics for discussion that would be described as "right wing" or "conservative"? Most of this country votes for right wing and conservative parties, are they represented?

No, but more centrist views are. There are definitely people there that aren't against capitalism, but think it should be regulated. Perhaps there are some "conservative" viewpoints going around in the larger camps.

I didn't say they were representative of right wing, just that it wasn't a "hard left" movement. It is a left leaning movement, as are most that emphasise the working classes over the elite.

However, there were a few small government types there, libertarian-esque, just less morally bankrupt than the ones you get on here.

If the majority of people are voting for right wing government, then honestly, we don't need to represent it EVEN MORE when the whole point is to look at alternatives to our current situation. We do not need more representation of the "there is no alternative" attitude, etc.

Given the left isn't really represented in Irish politics, it's reasonable an alternative movement will give more power to those views.

I would also contest that voting for such parties is less to do with people being consciously right wing and more to do with them being clueless. And quite a few people voted for labour, regardless. I also doubt people would have voted for Fine Gael if they knew they'd be as useless as they currently are(which they should have, but still).

CrystalLettuce · 29-10-2011 01:37AM

hmmm wrote: »

1 and 6pm every day? Sorry we're at work paying taxes at that time.

Yes, because everyone at those camps are lazy unemployed people, and not those who have been layed off due to the recession. A huge portion of the population suddenly decided to get lazy.

This is "logic" to the right wingers here.

hatrickpatrick · 29-10-2011 03:42AM

hmmm wrote: »

Who is deciding what the talks are going to be? Is there any topics for discussion that would be described as "right wing" or "conservative"? Most of this country votes for right wing and conservative parties, are they represented?

You know it's funny, I always thought the free market was something the right supported, not the left.

I guess that all changes when it's the 1% who are threatened by it, IE when it entails allowing banks which f*cked up to fail and allowing those directors and speculators who happen to be in the government's pocket to go bankrupt?

Kinda hypocritical and pathetic if you ask me.

Consistency is what I'd ask for. If we bail out THOSE failed speculators, we also bail out housing speculators in negative equity. Either we're bailing out speculators or we're not, it's 100% NOT ok to say "This group of humans is more equal than that one so we're going to help them but the rest of you with the exact same situation can go f*ck yourselves". Because that's what's happening.

Where's my NAMA if I screw things up? Where's my bailout? Oh yeah that's right, I don't get one, I actually have to live with the consequences of my mistakes.

Fair and equal society. Uh... Sure.

FreudianSlippers · 29-10-2011 10:02AM

davoxx wrote: »

oooooooooook

Yeah, that's not helping.

FreudianSlippers · 29-10-2011 10:08AM

davoxx wrote: »

voted for by who? everyone? just judges? ...

Judges don't make laws at all. Laws are made in the Oireachtas.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Labour ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/129085882819250490.html

Fine Gael ran on a platform of burning the bondholders.
http://www.businessandfinance.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=3295

Anyone who voted for either party for these reasons has been robbed of their vote.

It turned out it's not that easy or straightforward. Anyone that tells you otherwise is talking shíte.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes because a metro in Dublin is suddenly going to give the banks all the capital they need, cure the budget deficit, get 14% of the country back to work and clear the housing market. :rolleyes:

Well... actually... it would solve a lot of problems. Investment in infrastructure (such as MN or DU - preferably both) would immediately lower unemployment, boost the local economy, put more money into banks and increase cash circulation in Ireland.

Suryavarman · 29-10-2011 10:56AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well... actually... it would solve a lot of problems. Investment in infrastructure (such as MN or DU - preferably both) would immediately lower unemployment, boost the local economy, put more money into banks and increase cash circulation in Ireland.

Investing in infrastructure will also immediately increase the deficit, meaning more borrowing. This in turn will have to be paid back with interest, meaning higher unemployment whilst paying it back.

It won't boost the local economy if the people employed decide to pay all the bills they've fallen behind on instead of increasing consumption.

If the Government is borrowing then that means there will be less money going around for private businesses to borrow and re-invest in their businesses.

Also the resources the Government will be using to build this infrastructure won't be able for other purposes. That means the price of these resources is going to go up making it more expensive for factories to expand or for shops to refurbish their premises.

hatrickpatrick · 29-10-2011 11:32AM

hmmm wrote: »

1 and 6pm every day? Sorry we're at work paying taxes at that time.

1PM is during lunch, standard working day is 9-5 so that's BS for a start, the 6PM one is designed to be accessible. I'm in college and I go to the camp during my lunch breaks and on my way home each afternoon, which usually lines up with the 1PM and 6PM assemblies. They're designed to suit the most people at any given time. What do you propose, an 8PM assembly? People would argue that those not camping would be at home having dinner. You can always find some crappy excuse to say that the times aren't good times, if you have a better idea please do suggest it? You realize that 1PM and 6PM count on Saturday and Sunday too, right?

Secondly, can you please stop using this absolutely ridiculous argument that only people in full time employment pay taxes? I'm a student, but I do indeed pay taxes, any time I buy something in the shops I'm paying tax at 21%, every time I have a beer or fill up a car I'm paying excise duty, I'll probably be paying water charges soon enough, I pay stamp duty on an emergency credit card I got for a trip abroad a few years ago (never been used), I pay DIRT on all the interest my current account makes, and I pay a plastic bag levy every time I stop at a shop without having thought of bringing a bag for it. Those are the only ones I can think of at this moment although I'm sure there are others. I pay tax just like everyone else, with a job or without one. And I am incensed that money is being taken out of my pocket in the form of tax, not to help sick people in hospital, not to help our children get an education, not to fund our police and fire services, but to pay the wages and pensions of failures and gangsters who refuse to accept that their own mistakes were their own mistakes and not mine.

I still don't understand how the supposed "right" isn't angry about this, considering the right is usually MORE anti tax and anti government spending than the left.

But wait, again sorry - that's only provided it's not someone in the clique which needs help, in that case "oh well this is different, we need cowboy banks and their disgraced former executives need their six figure pensions...

I'm honestly failing utterly to see ANY logic whatsoever in that. I literally don't see a single shred of it.

Nolanger · 29-10-2011 12:00PM

There are more tents than protestors there?

hatrickpatrick · 29-10-2011 12:31PM

Nolanger wrote: »

There are more tents than protestors there?

Doubt it as most people are sharing tents. The numbers aren't consistent - some people don't camp every night, some people only come down during the day, some people camp all week, some people only the the weekend, etc.

Fluctuations in the size of a movement like this are inevitable. I can tell you for certain that if there is a tent up, at some point it was needed, IE there wasn't room in any of the others. You have absolutely no idea how hard it is to get them up and get them to stay up, there's no way they'd bother putting up unused ones just for show.

Obviously you can't pitch them into a concrete pavement so there are huge issues about fixing them in place, particularly with the gale force winds we had last week. We now have these wooden crates to attach them to, but it still gets quite nasty when it's very windy.

Take it from me - if the work to put up a tent and secure it has been done, it's being used.

Head The Wall · 29-10-2011 04:13PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Secondly, can you please stop using this absolutely ridiculous argument that only people in full time employment pay taxes? I'm a student, but I do indeed pay taxes, any time I buy something in the shops I'm paying tax at 21%, every time I have a beer or fill up a car I'm paying excise duty, I'll probably be paying water charges soon enough, I pay stamp duty on an emergency credit card I got for a trip abroad a few years ago (never been used), I pay DIRT on all the interest my current account makes, and I pay a plastic bag levy every time I stop at a shop without having thought of bringing a bag for it. Those are the only ones I can think of at this moment although I'm sure there are others. I pay tax just like everyone else, with a job or without one. And I am incensed that money is being taken out of my pocket in the form of tax, not to help sick people in hospital, not to help our children get an education, not to fund our police and fire services, but to pay the wages and pensions of failures and gangsters who refuse to accept that their own mistakes were their own mistakes and not mine.

What a ridiculous comment to make, do you pay any income tax - probably not. Also you are a student so unless you are paying the full cost of your education (which I doubt) you are actually costing the state more than what your "taxes" contribute to the economy.

So here you are looking for the money being lent to the govt which keeps you in college to be revoked in the misguided notion that you are paying your way via taxes on plastic bags and bags of tayto etc. You really have not got a clue

Hayte · 29-10-2011 05:21PM

I don't know why you are laying into him over being in full time education and not paying income tax. Everyone was in full time education once (I was in it 7 years ago). I've been in full time employment since 2004 and since then I've paid income tax. The time will come when hatrickpatrick will use the skills hes learning now to give something more back to society through an increased tax burden and by creating goods or services that other people use.

Everyone has to start somewhere and its pretty horrible of you to hold that over him.

EI_Flyboy · 29-10-2011 05:33PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

What a ridiculous comment to make, do you pay any income tax - probably not. Also you are a student so unless you are paying the full cost of your education (which I doubt) you are actually costing the state more than what your "taxes" contribute to the economy.

So here you are looking for the money being lent to the govt which keeps you in college to be revoked in the misguided notion that you are paying your way via taxes on plastic bags and bags of tayto etc. You really have not got a clue

Yes, we need to save money, more now than ever. Let's get rid of education, that will surely save us gazillions from those filthy spundging students. Who do they think they are, the cheek thinking they have a right to education AND have a voice at the same time!? The country would be better off without them, wouldn't it? Obviously it's the smart thing to do.

Head The Wall · 29-10-2011 07:16PM

This has nothing to do with him being in full time education and I didn't say I have a problem with that or that we should get rid of :rolleyes: education either. Open your eyes and read the post properly

I could also say that while I spent a few months on the dole I was "paying" tax as I was buying food, petrol and other things etc. I wouldn't say that though as I'm smart enough to see the difference, so yes I will refute his statement that he is paying taxes when overall he is not contributing to the economy at "present".

As a voter he has the right to question (that is if he voted) but he doesn't have a right to question by paying consumption taxes, if that was the case tourists would also have a say in our country but they don't

EI_Flyboy · 29-10-2011 08:26PM

Head The Wall wrote: »

This has nothing to do with him being in full time education and I didn't say I have a problem with that or that we should get rid of :rolleyes: education either. Open your eyes and read the post properly

I could also say that while I spent a few months on the dole I was "paying" tax as I was buying food, petrol and other things etc. I wouldn't say that though as I'm smart enough to see the difference, so yes I will refute his statement that he is paying taxes when overall he is not contributing to the economy at "present".

As a voter he has the right to question (that is if he voted) but he doesn't have a right to question by paying consumption taxes, if that was the case tourists would also have a say in our country but they don't

So why point it out to him? It seems to me he was already aware that it's exercising his vote that gives him a voice. You can't refute he's paying taxes by saying he's not contributing. He's contributing by getting an education and as such is investing in his future by ensuring himself a (hopefully)decent job where he'll be paying income tax, probably at the higher rate. I wouldn't even be too sure that he shouldn't have a voice if he doesn't vote or is on the dole, many people seem to be unaware of the idea of social contract. The idea that we give up our right to do anything we please in order to reap the benefits of living in an ordered society under the control of a government. When that society and government cease to hold up their end of the contract, they lose control. Hatrick is beginning to become aware that someone somewhere isn't living up to there side of the bargain.

Head The Wall · 29-10-2011 08:44PM

I disagree, by supporting this protest he is giving the two fingers to the democratic process. It was also himself that raised the point about him financially contributing and not me, I was just clarifying it.

‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

Comments