Election 2011 Offical Thread.

[LaurelEye]

The majority of people in this country are on a lot less than €100K a year household income - it's not because, to use your words, they "don't want to better themselves". They are a lot more entitled to complain about how hard they have things than you or I.

[armaghniac]

You know, there are a lot of people - a big majority, actually - who are working just as hard as you are and have just as many financial outgoings as you have but have less resources with which to meet those commitments and are also dealing with a decreasing standard of living.

The point is that everyone has to have a decreasing standard of living. If the country is poorer then this should not just the concern of a few. There is tremendous hypocrisy from those who argue that if the country becomes more prosperous then everyone should share, but if it becomes poorer then that isn't everyone's problem.

[lawnseed]

Apart from Obama, is there another leader on the planet who has the same charisma? Certainly not in Europe anyway,
Merkle- no nonsense alright, but not known for Charisma
Berlousconi - Charisma -not sure that is the word for it- Horny perhaps
Sarkozy- french- pomp- not much charisma, fine missus.
Cameron- Eton school boy- enough said

i don't think charisma is needed, all the mandarins behind the scenes do all the work, the prime minister walks in signs the document and heads off.
We have had the charisma "Bertie" and the brains "Cowen". I say give Enda a chance, he has a very good team behind him, more so than any other party and to be honest, Enda  lets them do their job. That is one of the traits that makes a good leader - been able to trust your team. Still not voting for FG for the record.

i've no doubt that enda kenny is a nice bloke. but to say charisma is not a reguirement is naive, what had michael collins to offer other than charisma and the offer of a firing squad or a tyburn collar. people are voting fine gael because they have no choice they are not AS bad as fianna fail. fine gael will not reverse one single fianna fail policy and will infact add to working class misery. turkeys voting for christmas springs to mind.

ps did anyone see 'lord' hillary son of ex president hillary canvassing for fianna fail on the news and then  interviewed infront of his antique bookcase i'd love that maggot to knock on my door i'd kick a new hole in his arse

I have asked this question on other threads here,who are the "working class" that certain sections of political classes keep harping on about?

I have a fairly good job, would have a good income and standard of living (thank God). I have worked hard, made sacrifices to get where i am, but it makes me mad when i hear the term "working class",  it reminds me of chimney  sweeps and coal mine workers. It is the middle/ professional classes who are fortunate enough to still have jobs who are now paying the vast majority of tax to keep the country going. Joe Higgins talks about "decent ordinary working class people" as opposed to "indecent extraordinary working class people".

It seems that this philosophy is, tax the shit out of anyone who has a fairly good job, the very same people who have a bit of spending power and could even be in a position to create a few jobs for others,make sure anyone who betters themselves are kept down to the same level of people who don't want to better themselves, keep the government involved in industries like, power generation, buses, trains, postal services etc. I know there are plenty of hardship cases around who need help, but trying to keep all levels of society at the same level surely is not the way forward, i think personally. (above comments exclude developers, bankers, politicians, i am talking about people whose household income is around 100k, both parties working.

ok imagine you are working class and being heavily taxed... now think of someone worse off than you having every penny taken from them thats whats fine gael are about remember tax on kids shoes

I don't think FG are planning on taking every penny (we use cents down here  btw ) off anyone.
What solution to our problems do you propose?

what must happen is that the irish gov. must stop throwing money at these banks, if that money paid out so far had been invested in jobs we'd already be coming out of recession. 61% of money paid out in wages eventually comes back in taxes so we'd have people in work spending money and getting the economy moving. planning must be fast tracked and i mean fast (weeks) especially for wind turbines and renewables im hearing up to 12 years from application to turning a sod (WTF). we must simply tell our creditors that we are taking a break from payments to do an audit. all debts accrued by the state will be honoured, all private debts- tough shit. we are a country not a fella with a mortgage WE say what happens. we are next door to the most urban economy in europe they need food, energy,recreation etc we are best placed to supply we must drive irish business into england promote irish industry, buy 1 million tickets from ryan air from england to ireland and give them out free to english people and stop trying to fleece them when they come here. getting an economy moving isnt about billions here and there its about a guy being able to turn a quid and building up his confidence/ability to increase his business. no civil servant should earn more than 100000/annum doctor, dentist, judge, politician,broadcaster,cop,lawyer- anyone in the receipt of public money 100000 euro max. if they want to leave let them if they are so good at their job let them make it in the real world.

[Rouge_Diablo]

One for the economists among you.

What is the benefit of the current Tax system where you pay certain rates at certain levels of income, as opposed to say a flat rate that you pay no matter how much you earn e.g. everyone pays 20%?

[LaurelEye]

You know, there are a lot of people - a big majority, actually - who are working just as hard as you are and have just as many financial outgoings as you have but have less resources with which to meet those commitments and are also dealing with a decreasing standard of living.

The point is that everyone has to have a decreasing standard of living. If the country is poorer then this should not just the concern of a few. There is tremendous hypocrisy from those who argue that if the country becomes more prosperous then everyone should share, but if it becomes poorer then that isn't everyone's problem.

I realise fully that the vast majority of people here are going to have a decreasing standard of living - probably for at least the next decade. I'm not at all sure that the general electorate realise how hard it's likely to get, and I don't see the politicians as being willing to enlighten them, judging by the codology that's being doled out during the election campaign.

The problem is that people down at the bottom end of the scale have less room for manouevre with declining living standards than those at the top, if prices and the cost of living aren't also decreasing. That has to be taken account of when deciding how the burden should be shared.

[Ulick]

From Jude Collins...

Telling it like it wasn't?

Wtf, as they say on Facebook and other places. Or "What the f**k?" as I sometimes say to my nearest and dearest. I said it again last night, not after the leaders' debate on TV, but after watching the response to the leaders' debate on  RTÉ's The Eleventh Hour , which featured Keelin Shanley with what she called  "a panel of dispassionate political journalists" – Sam Smyth, Katie Hannon and Michael Clifford.

Like most people, I'd been watching the debate with an eye on two people in particular: Enda Kenny, to see if he would put his foot in it now he'd finally agreed to appear on a TV debate; and Gerry Adams, to see if he would repeat his 2007 debate performance, which was widely adjudged to have been not his finest hour.  What I saw was Enda Kenny performing pretty well: on occasion he looked a bit physically small, even wan, but in his exchanges with Eamon Gilmore he clearly triumphed.  Gerry Adams seemed a bit nervous, drinking an amount of water and moving his feet around, but in his contributions he was clear, concrete and specific – a world away from his exchange with Michael McDowell in 2007.

So then I tune into The Eleventh Hour's dispassionate trio. What, I repeat, the f**k?  Sam Smyth judged Enda Kenny to have done really well, but as for Gerry Adams: "What was he doing there? He really doesn't know anything about economics".  Katie Hannon said Kenny did really well, but Micheal Martin landed "killer punches" on Gerry Adams. Michael Clifford said Enda Kenny was very good, while Gerry Adams simply trotted out stock phrases and his sums didn't add up.  Keelin Shanley agreed and showed two points in the debate where Martin attacked Adams. For some reason, Adams's response in both cases had been edited out.

What the f**k, I murmured to myself. So I switched to Vincent Browne Tonight  on TV3.  He has four panellists. All four declared that Adams did very well and Browne himself agreed. The Irish Times  this morning figured Adams was fluid and had a command of detail; even its ghastly columnist Miriam Lord conceded that Adams did very well, more than held his own.  On RTÉ radio this morning, commentators agreed that Adams had put in a very effective performance.

So wtf?  Why this chasm between the response from the Dispassionates on The Eleventh Hour  and that from everywhere else? You tell me. But please: don't tell me The Eleventh Hour  response had something to do with Sam Smyth's insistence a week or so ago that Gerry Adams would be a disaster in the televised debate. That would suggest that the programme made a frantic effort to spin the event so it fitted into Sam's c**k-eyed prophecy and that, if true, would open up an appalling vista. Wouldn't it?

Wtf...

[An Gaeilgoir]

You know, there are a lot of people - a big majority, actually - who are working just as hard as you are and have just as many financial outgoings as you have but have less resources with which to meet those commitments and are also dealing with a decreasing standard of living.

The point is that everyone has to have a decreasing standard of living. If the country is poorer then this should not just the concern of a few. There is tremendous hypocrisy from those who argue that if the country becomes more prosperous then everyone should share, but if it becomes poorer then that isn't everyone's problem.

So, if we pay say, 60 per cent tax on our income along with VAT etc. then our disposable income drops right down,mulitply this by 80 thousand households in the same bracket, how much money will this pull in for the state? Would the state not be better trying to encourage these 80,000 families spend a bit more and the benifits this can bring? versus the state increases the social welfare side of things with the extra income from these families making it better to stay unemployed as aginst working. I realise everyday how fortunate i am and past experiences have tohught me never take anything for granted. But my point is, taxing the shit out of the likes of me, i don't think will get the country back on its feet. Thats all. As for the arrogance, i may be a lot of things, but i ain't that.

[LaurelEye]

One for the economists among you.

What is the benefit of the current Tax system where you pay certain rates at certain levels of income, as opposed to say a flat rate that you pay no matter how much you earn e.g. everyone pays 20%?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

[lawnseed]

You know, there are a lot of people - a big majority, actually - who are working just as hard as you are and have just as many financial outgoings as you have but have less resources with which to meet those commitments and are also dealing with a decreasing standard of living.

The point is that everyone has to have a decreasing standard of living. If the country is poorer then this should not just the concern of a few. There is tremendous hypocrisy from those who argue that if the country becomes more prosperous then everyone should share, but if it becomes poorer then that isn't everyone's problem.

I realise fully that the vast majority of people here are going to have a decreasing standard of living - probably for at least the next decade. I'm not at all sure that the general electorate realise how hard it's likely to get, and I don't see the politicians as being willing to enlighten them, judging by the codology that's being doled out during the election campaign.

The problem is that people down at the bottom end of the scale have less room for manouevre with declining living standards than those at the top, if prices and the cost of living aren't also decreasing. That has to be taken account of when deciding how the burden should be shared.

exactly laurel people who enjoy two foreign hols a year will have to settle for one so as the worse off can eat and stay warm

[LaurelEye]

You know, there are a lot of people - a big majority, actually - who are working just as hard as you are and have just as many financial outgoings as you have but have less resources with which to meet those commitments and are also dealing with a decreasing standard of living.

The point is that everyone has to have a decreasing standard of living. If the country is poorer then this should not just the concern of a few. There is tremendous hypocrisy from those who argue that if the country becomes more prosperous then everyone should share, but if it becomes poorer then that isn't everyone's problem.

So, if we pay say, 60 per cent tax on our income along with VAT etc. then our disposable income drops right down, as does my "disposable" income, mulitply this by 80 thousand households in the same bracket, how much money will this pull in for the state? Would the state not be better trying to encourage these 80,000 families spend a bit more and the benifits this can bring? versus the state increases the social welfare side of things with the extra income from these families making it better to stay unemployed as aginst working. I realise everyday how fortunate i am and past experiences have tohught me never take anything for granted. But my point is, taxing the shit out of the likes of me, i don't think will get the country back on its feet. Thats all. As for the arrogance, i may be a lot of things, but i ain't that.

Ideally, we wouldn't be in a position where we were either hiking tax or slashing spending in the middle of a deep depression, because both are likely to further deflate the economy. (The 1987-90 period is not a good guide because we were fortunate enough to have a booming economy next door which acted as a source of demand for exports of goods and labour. We were also still getting considerable transfers from the EU at the time.)

[An Gaeilgoir]

Problem Solved, Ring Enda and put him on to Melissa, i hope she has sent him the same mail;


From:   
Melissa Johnson <zip_offers_c@ochiress.com>
...
Add to Contacts
To:   

My name is Melissa Johnson and what I am about to let you know how I turned $97 into a monthly income of $8975 each month.


Press here if you want to know how I make $8975 per month:
http://ochiress.com/tr.php?122855





Thank you!

Melissa Johnson








-----

If you do not wish to receive future offers for this promo simply visit this page:
http://ochiress.com/tr.php?122856

Or write to: 422 Richards St. Suite 170, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2Z3








You will not get anymore of our emails if you go here:
http://ochiress.com/unsub.php?client=zip_offers_c&msgid=14021100025
and enter your email address


or write to:

6965 El Camino Real Suite 105-698
La Costa, CA 92009

[lawnseed]

we need tony quinn.. thats it we are not up to our full brain power.. a couple of weeks rubbing sand on ourselves in the bahamas and we'll see things in a different light.

[turk]

From Jude Collins...

Telling it like it wasn't?

Wtf, as they say on Facebook and other places. Or "What the f**k?" as I sometimes say to my nearest and dearest. I said it again last night, not after the leaders' debate on TV, but after watching the response to the leaders' debate on  RTÉ's The Eleventh Hour , which featured Keelin Shanley with what she called  "a panel of dispassionate political journalists" – Sam Smyth, Katie Hannon and Michael Clifford.

Like most people, I'd been watching the debate with an eye on two people in particular: Enda Kenny, to see if he would put his foot in it now he'd finally agreed to appear on a TV debate; and Gerry Adams, to see if he would repeat his 2007 debate performance, which was widely adjudged to have been not his finest hour.  What I saw was Enda Kenny performing pretty well: on occasion he looked a bit physically small, even wan, but in his exchanges with Eamon Gilmore he clearly triumphed.  Gerry Adams seemed a bit nervous, drinking an amount of water and moving his feet around, but in his contributions he was clear, concrete and specific – a world away from his exchange with Michael McDowell in 2007.

So then I tune into The Eleventh Hour's dispassionate trio. What, I repeat, the f**k?  Sam Smyth judged Enda Kenny to have done really well, but as for Gerry Adams: "What was he doing there? He really doesn't know anything about economics".  Katie Hannon said Kenny did really well, but Micheal Martin landed "killer punches" on Gerry Adams. Michael Clifford said Enda Kenny was very good, while Gerry Adams simply trotted out stock phrases and his sums didn't add up.  Keelin Shanley agreed and showed two points in the debate where Martin attacked Adams. For some reason, Adams's response in both cases had been edited out.

What the f**k, I murmured to myself. So I switched to Vincent Browne Tonight  on TV3.  He has four panellists. All four declared that Adams did very well and Browne himself agreed. The Irish Times  this morning figured Adams was fluid and had a command of detail; even its ghastly columnist Miriam Lord conceded that Adams did very well, more than held his own.  On RTÉ radio this morning, commentators agreed that Adams had put in a very effective performance.

So wtf?  Why this chasm between the response from the Dispassionates on The Eleventh Hour  and that from everywhere else? You tell me. But please: don't tell me The Eleventh Hour  response had something to do with Sam Smyth's insistence a week or so ago that Gerry Adams would be a disaster in the televised debate. That would suggest that the programme made a frantic effort to spin the event so it fitted into Sam's c**k-eyed prophecy and that, if true, would open up an appalling vista. Wouldn't it?

Wtf...

Wasn't there something between Sam Smyth and Mary Lou some years back?

[Maguire01]

The 'debate' wasn't really up to much. Got a bit better as it went on but five was too many and there wasn't enough time to hear much more than soundbites and cliches. I doubt anyone will change their voting intentions on the basis of it.

I was having more entertainment following the hashtag on Twitter.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Tomorrow's Irish Independent - Milward Brown poll


FG 38 (+ 8 )
Lab 23 (-1)
SF 10 (-3)
FF 12 ( -4)
Gr 1 (-)
Ind/Other 16 (-1)

Being for the Indo I would normally take this with a pinch of salt but it matches closely with the recent Red C poll, FG seem to be really up @ 38%