Progressive Democrats; About Us

I'd second cactus flower here up to a point. I'm not sure how I'd describe myself economically - possibly market-oriented social democrat...the problem with a lot of economically right-wing parties is that they usually understand little about markets, and often even less about society.

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

I personally always figured that doing the right thing was more important that doing the right(wing) thing.
My background is steeped in entrepeneurship, and self-sufficiany. I was not brought up in an environment that ever went to the State for anything so I have an indifferent attitude towards all things State.

Its not a pathological hatred or anything, its just a general indifference. If I'm in trouble I seek to solve it independently. As a result I always had less regard for those who would propose that the State provide.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

I personally always figured that doing the right thing was more important that doing the right(wing) thing.
My background is steeped in entrepeneurship, and self-sufficiany. I was not brought up in an environment that ever went to the State for anything so I have an indifferent attitude towards all things State.

Its not a pathological hatred or anything, its just a general indifference. If I'm in trouble I seek to solve it independently. As a result I always had less regard for those who would propose that the State provide.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

I dare say you weren't born without a crust, Johnny.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

I personally always figured that doing the right thing was more important that doing the right(wing) thing.
My background is steeped in entrepeneurship, and self-sufficiany. I was not brought up in an environment that ever went to the State for anything so I have an indifferent attitude towards all things State.

Its not a pathological hatred or anything, its just a general indifference. If I'm in trouble I seek to solve it independently. As a result I always had less regard for those who would propose that the State provide.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

Much the same as myself so. I'd never really class myself as "right wing" though I have no problem admitting that I have a neoliberal outlook on things. I don't see that as a dirty word. But, like you (and I like the
 analogy) I see the the state is a safety net, not a hammock. It's the last call on any situation, not the first. 

cactus flower wrote:

I dare say you weren't born without a crust, Johnny.

No, I never wanted for anything but I was not from a wealthy family. My family are buried in Finglas village for 6 generations. May Dad was a milkman in Merville like his father and all the uncles and he was a footballer before self-employment called out to him and my mum ran her own hairdressers out in the garage in the back garden.

Small business people but self sufficient. Finglas was a wonderful place for me. Housing estates full of kids my age close to the fields where we could explore and gallop the odd horse.

I live in Donabate because in 1988 I could'nt afford to live in Dublin. My Ma cried because she thought I was emigrating.

Its important for me to let you know I'm not D4 nor am I Gonzaga. I did my Leaving in St Kevins CBS Ballygall. Proud of my background and my roots, I still beleive the greatest gift the State can do for any man or woman is to create a job for them to do.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I dare say you weren't born without a crust, Johnny.

No, I never wanted for anything but I was not from a wealthy family. My family are buried in Finglas village for 6 generations. May Dad was a milkman in Merville like his father and all the uncles and he was a footballer before self-employment called out to him and my mum ran her own hairdressers out in the garage in the back garden.

Small business people but self sufficient. Finglas was a wonderful place for me. Housing estates full of kids my age close to the fields where we could explore and gallop the odd horse.

I live in Donabate because in 1988 I could'nt afford to live in Dublin. My Ma cried because she thought I was emigrating.

Its important for me to let you know I'm not D4 nor am I Gonzaga. I did my Leaving in St Kevins CBS Ballygall. Proud of my background and my roots, I still beleive the greatest gift the State can do for any man or woman is to create a job for them to do.

Fair do's to you Johnny. But if you know parts of Dublin where no one had a job in the early 1990s you know what I am talking about. We didn't have much either but there is a gulf between not much and nothing.

Some terms here mean the exact opposite to over there. Liberal here means socialist whereas there it seems to mean a hands off approach to the economy. Here is no longer a capitalist system but is corporatism. This is called welfare for the rich. They say it is a free country but is in fact heavily regulated. You need a special license to become something as mundane as a barber. This place is as bad as East Germany was. I would start by closing down that health system that is back there. I would fire every medical worker in the country. I read that there is 18 billion Euros spent by the health department. For that much money you could buy private health insurance and fly them out here for treatment for every person in the country and still have money for them to do a bit of shopping on the way home. There would be no more nurses strikes and modern health centers would spring up very quickly. No more trollies and filth. That is what I would expect a new party to propose. The next day they could take all tax off cigerettes. This craic of taxing the poor is just not on. I don't smoke but how slimey politicians can get away with sticking the small guy is outlandish. The next day that ridiculous tv license would be scrapped for the same reason.

Do your income taxes fluctuate over there from year to year dan? Ours are at 20 and 40% roughly but should be able to go up and down as the situation worsens/brightens as the case may be.

The EU Commission is taking the Irish Govt to court because of the price we are putting on cigarettes ... I hope we lose.. the poor are the ones hit hardest by smoking and the approach is to say well let them give up then which is nonsense if you have ever been an addict to the cigarettes - it's very difficult to _just_ give them up... The price could be lowered to the point where any medical payments due to smokers suffering equals the cost of the cigarettes to consumers...

Your taxes there are probably over 70%. If you are at 20% even then you must keep in mind what happens to the remaining 80%. You might need to spend this in it's entirety to live. Anything subject to vat is what,21%. Petrol is maybe 60%. Fags maybe 89% car tax etc tv stamp duty all adds up. Your standard of living is probably 1/5 of what it should be because ifyou could calculate what is added to the price of a product to pay for taxes heaped on the producer who knows how much lower the price would be. Taxes over here are extremely complicated. There are numerous bands and the highest is maybe 30%. Then you have deductions for certain things like state taxes and mortage repayments. Now most states also have an income tax separate from the federal tax. In Massachusetts it is 5.3%. On top of this as well they grab 7.3% for social security. Money is withheld each week and the employer makes deposits into accounts to both governments. On April 15 each year you file your taxes both to federal and state and you might get a pittance back and everybody thinks the government gave them money. There are also property taxes and excises that you pay to your local town which will really crash the real estate market. Then there are fees as well. Many states also have sales taxes and in Massachusetts this is 5%. The rates rarely change but there will be plenty of talk about the top rate being raised a smidgen. Now in Massachusetts this November election there is a drive to put an inititive on the ballot to eliminate the state tax. This may be tremendous fun. There is a tremendous change under way here. The Ron Paul people are undaunted and growing. His views on the economy and the war are being proved more right by the day. I expect the call for an attack on Iran to come from Petraeus this week and then we will see what happens. TV guys that called Paul a nut 6 months ago have changed their attitude. I will post an example

Glenn Beck really hurt Paul last year along with all the other commentators except Tucker Carlson. Carlson of msnbc has been fired. Now watch how he treats him talking economics to deal with the present crisis. The line of thinking in this video will eventually come to the fore amd a real party may break from the pds with this philosophy. Maybe a new party separate altogether will arise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6D_tWetv8

That's interesting that the media has done an about-face on Ron Paul now that the dollar is hyperinflating. Paul sounds like he might be around long after the election is over, if America has that thirst for the new party like Ireland once did.

Why don't you open a thread on Ron Paul in the world politics, dan? We could be starting to derail Johnny's thread here although monetary and tax reform were heavy on the PD agenda when they started out. See how this one goes for a while though - maybe there's good ground for a comparison internationally if people have enough knowledge about both worlds. For example we used to have 3 bands of income tax before the PDs but they reduced it to two and pushed for lowering both each budget until money started to swim around in the economy. Around the time of their emergence the Irish economy was troubled by 20% inflation too which is unbelievable but between the PDs wanting fiscal and monetary reform and the Opposition of the time pushing also for low debt-to-GDP ratios, the economy normalized and out of it possibly came the Celtic Tiger or at least better conditions for any Tiger to exist in.

I definitely do not want to derail Johnny but what I would like to get a feel for is if the PDs are a free enterprise thinking group or if they are just another spineless shower with no great differences than the rest. Why vote for a party that is similiar to another when you can vote for the real thing.

youngdan wrote:

I definitely do not want to derail Johnny but what I would like to get a feel for is if the PDs are a free enterprise thinking group or if they are just another spineless shower with no great differences than the rest. Why vote for a party that is similiar to another when you can vote for the real thing.

God, where do I start?

Are we spineless? I dont think so but we are no revolutionaries either. What the Progressive Democrats are proposing is not radical enough to be very different from what Fine Gael or Fianna Fail are proposing. This has been our biggest problem in the last 10 years.
The first 10 years we looked and sounded radical but that was because our policies had never been tried here. Now they have and, guess what? those daft PDs wer'nt so daft after all.

The second 10 years was trying to find an opening tofill that no one else was doing because everyone was doing our stuff now.

We never found that niche.

Harney in Health and McDowell in Justice could not make a big enough difference to save the party from meltdown. Both are now gone or going and will play no more part in the Progressive Democrats.

Its start from scrtch for us and thats not neccesarily a bad thing. We are almost like a blank canvas. We have our core liberal economic policies of free enterprise.
Its the core liberal social policies that we have not shined well in. Thats because an liberal economic party does not always attract liberally social supporters. There are quite afew of us and always have been but we were, I think, outnumbered by the social conservatives among us.
these conservatives are largely gone now and we are back to our 1990's days when I and my collegues campaigned for Freedom of Choice, Divorce etc.

On the 16th of April we have a new leader. This event will dictate to short & long term future of the Progressive Democrats.

Any ideas Johnny, as to which direction the various hopefuls might take the PDs and which you think would be best fit for the job?

Kate P wrote:

Any ideas Johnny, as to which direction the various hopefuls might take the PDs and which you think would be best fit for the job?

Why didn't you stand yourself, Johnny? There was not exactly a stampede for the job.

That sounds pretty good. What is Cannon like. I read that his vote was largely personnel so is he an option for leader or would it be risky that he would fail to get elected in E Galway. So by liberal economic you mean free market and liberal social you mean what some call progressive. Also why would a party that pretends to be an alternative then go into coalition with the party it was saying it is the alternative to.

youngdan wrote:

That sounds pretty good. What is Cannon like. I read that his vote was largely personnel so is he an option for leader or would it be risky that he would fail to get elected in E Galway. So by liberal economic you mean free market and liberal social you mean what some call progressive. Also why would a party that pretends to be an alternative then go into coalition with the party it was saying it is the alternative to.

I like him. Dont ask me why, I just like him and I would consider myself to Joe Six-pack, so if I like him I figure most people will too.

Then again, I like just about everybody so I'm probably not such a great judge of character.

I would put it to you that when we go out to get votes at election, we do it hoping to get as many as we can.
When we return with less than 5% of the votes I think its reasonable to surmise that the majority of the elctorate are not interested in your story.

So our mandate is a very limited one. As a result we have got to compromise so much in order to implement the small amount we can.
Such is life and politics.
I have no complaints about it.

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

That is a fine post Cactus. I admire them too. I think you are right about economic plight giving rise to a right wing party. The danger is that racists and homophobes will join up to deliberatly sabotage it. The welfare state is finished and what is needed is a free interprise system. This stands no chance at present but it will soon enough. What ever percentage of pd members, however small, should form their own party and bide their time

Thanks for the appreciation youngdan, but I observe the prospect without enthusiam, and my admiration is for the person not the politics. I was watching a little of a programme from the US while our party was on, about how Bush has changed the bankruptcy laws to make it harder to declare bankruptcy after €60+ million of lobbying by credit card interests: the pips will surely squeak. I am a socialist: I think we are going to have to work together to survive: if we are fragmented down to one-off survivalism I think a lot of us won't make it.

As a libertarian socialist I'm in agreement CF.
We live in a complex civilisation so we need complex co-operative solutions to ongoing problems. Going back to the 19th Century and throwing it out to the market ain't on.

I also think youngdan is very much on the far-right. I believe he's a supporter of Ron Paul who also wants to see the end of the welfare state? Some of youngdan's posts on p.ie were bordering on the racist, and were overall despicable. Not all, but a good proportion.

I'd also agree with Auditor's point above that the PDs were an integral part of the ongoing reduction in progressive taxation, but must point out that it came with a concomitant increase in indirect taxes and charges.


Also, I feel these tax changes were not directly associated with the boom as the highest boom years preceded the most egregious progressive tax reductions.

Pax wrote:

As a libertarian socialist I'm in agreement CF.
We live in a complex civilisation so we need complex co-operative solutions to ongoing problems. Going back to the 19th Century and throwing it out to the market ain't on.

I also think youngdan is very much on the far-right. I believe he's a supporter of Ron Paul who also wants to see the end of the welfare state? Some of youngdan's posts on p.ie were bordering on the racist, and were overall despicable. Not all, but a good proportion.

I'd also agree with Auditor's point above that the PDs were an integral part of the ongoing reduction in progressive taxation, but must point out that it came with a concomitant increase in indirect taxes and charges.

Also, I feel these tax changes were not directly associated with the boom as the highest boom years preceded the most egregious progressive tax reductions.

That's an interesting point about the increase in indirect taxes and charges - can you remember any specifically? It'd be another interesting thing to talk about the welfare state on another thread another day and how the PDs and such 'liberal' parties view it. I myself have a very open and left-wing view of it and I would find economic theories of the likes of Ron Paul interesting of whom I'm aware because on p.ie both yourself and youngdan (who by no means had a shlock of despicable posts there ) brought him up from time to time. His theories and theories like it would be very different from how I would see how a welfare system could and should be but in the interests of academic difference and some debate I find it's worthwhile entertaining the very opposite views to my own.

Pax. If I posted anything racist then I can not remember them. If you are refering to my unhappiness with Aid for Africa then I would not give aid to Eskimos either. I would give aid to nobody. So give an example of my racist post so that I can see what you are on about. How can anybody be a libertarian and a socialist at the same time. You are correct I am a Ron Paul advocate but you seem to think he is far right wing. He was one of the few that votes against both patriot acts and The Military Commission Act which are far right wing laws. So can you give one example of this far right wing iseas you speak of because maybe our understanding of the term is different. You are also right in saying that I don't think much of the welfare state but this point is about to be moot because neither country can afford them anymore and the taxpayers are less willing to pay for layabouts. Johnny, maybe the voters looked upon your party as just an appendage of FF. So why vote for the appendage when you can vote for the real thing. I think the population is not ready for a radical alternative. I read somewhere that 1.6 million people get some sort of a check from the government. I suppose this is the unemployed plus family members, the old plus state workers. It reminds me of the student marchs at one time. These fools have brains so warped that they think some factory worker owes them an education so that they can later look down their noses at them. I believe the PDs should stick to their beliefs and offer the taxpayers a choice.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

the problem is you presume people do treat it like that, thats what make you right wing and mean, its all this 'i never got any help so nobody else should' attitude.

and then go about creating policies that make it harder for people to get help when needed.

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

the problem is you presume people do treat it like that, thats what make you right wing and mean, its all this 'i never got any help so nobody else should' attitude.

and then go about creating policies that make it harder for people to get help when needed.

On the contrary, lost, I would be of the opinion that there are many people who need State help. I'm just not one of them; yet.

What I do object to is those who dont need State help, but are taking it anyway, are, in effect, stealing what rightfully belongs to those who genuinely need the State safety net.

Beleive it or not, but one of the Ministers I most admire in the short time I have been aware of what ministers do, is Prionnsios de Rossa.
He was a Democratic Left TD in the 1990's and was Minister for Social Welfare. He purged the welfare system of spongers from top to bottom. He did an incredible job of ensuring that only those who needed welfare got it.
There were so many people drawing the Dole and working that we, the taxpayers were being crucified paying for it.

Mr de Rossa is not generally refered to as "that right-wing bollox" from what I can tell.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

the problem is you presume people do treat it like that, thats what make you right wing and mean, its all this 'i never got any help so nobody else should' attitude.

and then go about creating policies that make it harder for people to get help when needed.

On the contrary, lost, I would be of the opinion that there are many people who need State help. I'm just not one of them; yet.

What I do object to is those who dont need State help, but are taking it anyway, are, in effect, stealing what rightfully belongs to those who genuinely need the State safety net.

Beleive it or not, but one of the Ministers I most admire in the short time I have been aware of what ministers do, is Prionnsios de Rossa.
He was a Democratic Left TD in the 1990's and was Minister for Social Welfare. He purged the welfare system of spongers from top to bottom. He did an incredible job of ensuring that only those who needed welfare got it.
There were so many people drawing the Dole and working that we, the taxpayers were being crucified paying for it.

Mr de Rossa is not generally refered to as "that right-wing bollox" from what I can tell.

Interesting debate: a problem I would have with the free market model is that it is being tried and it is just not working. When you get right wing institutions calling for nationalisation of banks and greater regulation, it is clearly a moment of re-assessment of the model.

cactus flower wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

the problem is you presume people do treat it like that, thats what make you right wing and mean, its all this 'i never got any help so nobody else should' attitude.

and then go about creating policies that make it harder for people to get help when needed.

On the contrary, lost, I would be of the opinion that there are many people who need State help. I'm just not one of them; yet.

What I do object to is those who dont need State help, but are taking it anyway, are, in effect, stealing what rightfully belongs to those who genuinely need the State safety net.

Beleive it or not, but one of the Ministers I most admire in the short time I have been aware of what ministers do, is Prionnsios de Rossa.
He was a Democratic Left TD in the 1990's and was Minister for Social Welfare. He purged the welfare system of spongers from top to bottom. He did an incredible job of ensuring that only those who needed welfare got it.
There were so many people drawing the Dole and working that we, the taxpayers were being crucified paying for it.

Mr de Rossa is not generally refered to as "that right-wing bollox" from what I can tell.

Interesting debate: a problem I would have with the free market model is that it is being tried and it is just not working. When you get right wing institutions calling for nationalisation of banks and greater regulation, it is clearly a moment of re-assessment of the model.

The Free Market Model has worked since trade begain thousands of years ago.
You buy it for one shell and sell it for two shells.

What has'nt worked is a way to tax it, but thats not the Free Market Model's fault.
With the recent crisis in the global banking institutions, its not the "trade" that was at fault.
Its the astonishing stupidity of extremely well paid professional to be scamed by shysters with a degree.

Bottom line is the worlds banks bought bad debt. They were sold a pup.
Now is that the fault of the Free Trade Market or is it simply a case of "Buyer Beware"?

I know what I think it is but people are free to blame whatever they like.

The muppet upstairs in the corner office on the 97th floor who bought 100 million dollars worth of packaged mortgages from an American real estate gangster, is the ultimate gobshite in all of this.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I must admit, I never knew we were a liberal party until I read it in a newspaper. I know it written all over the website etc but to be honest I never really paid much attention to it.

To me the State is a safety net, not a hammock. I dont think that is right-wing merely a general attitude to life.

the problem is you presume people do treat it like that, thats what make you right wing and mean, its all this 'i never got any help so nobody else should' attitude.

and then go about creating policies that make it harder for people to get help when needed.

On the contrary, lost, I would be of the opinion that there are many people who need State help. I'm just not one of them; yet.

What I do object to is those who dont need State help, but are taking it anyway, are, in effect, stealing what rightfully belongs to those who genuinely need the State safety net.

Beleive it or not, but one of the Ministers I most admire in the short time I have been aware of what ministers do, is Prionnsios de Rossa.
He was a Democratic Left TD in the 1990's and was Minister for Social Welfare. He purged the welfare system of spongers from top to bottom. He did an incredible job of ensuring that only those who needed welfare got it.
There were so many people drawing the Dole and working that we, the taxpayers were being crucified paying for it.

Mr de Rossa is not generally refered to as "that right-wing bollox" from what I can tell.

Interesting debate: a problem I would have with the free market model is that it is being tried and it is just not working. When you get right wing institutions calling for nationalisation of banks and greater regulation, it is clearly a moment of re-assessment of the model.

The Free Market Model has worked since trade begain thousands of years ago.
You buy it for one shell and sell it for two shells.

What has'nt worked is a way to tax it, but thats not the Free Market Model's fault.
With the recent crisis in the global banking institutions, its not the "trade" that was at fault.
Its the astonishing stupidity of extremely well paid professional to be scamed by shysters with a degree.

Bottom line is the worlds banks bought bad debt. They were sold a pup.
Now is that the fault of the Free Trade Market or is it simply a case of "Buyer Beware"?

I know what I think it is but people are free to blame whatever they like.

The muppet upstairs in the corner office on the 97th floor who bought 100 million dollars worth of packaged mortgages from an American real estate gangster, is the ultimate gobshite in all of this.

Were you calling him a muppet last year ? If a few scams were able to throw us into an economic crisis that is being called worse than the Great Depression (it took a World War to end that one), the system cant exactly be described as robust.