Progressive Democrats; About Us

cactus flower wrote:

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.

There is no legislating for human stupidity, eh?

And I beleive people should be free to make thier own mistakes. What are the chances these debt bundle will ever see the light of day again?
Mortgages brokers were selling 14,000 different financial products 12 months ago.
Today they are selling 6,000 different products.
The market learns fast, changes quickly and then moves on.
Its the only system in town; Experiance.

Apparently there was $33 of debt for every 1 on Bear Stearns books ...

The greater part of the problem here is the fact that the market is not free at all. There was no reason not to give loans because they were just sold on immediately to the likes of Fannie Mae and the commissions are collected. Everyone turned a blind eye to the obvious and these loans were aptly known as Liar's Loans. There was nothing to lose and what is known as moral hazard did not exist. A bank did not have to worry about the natural brake on reckless behaviour through bank runs because deposit insurance took care of that. The cost which is inflation is hidden until the fan gets clogged. We are at that point now. A free enterprise advocating party would have a decent chance of success in Ireland because the voters are smart enough to understand this. They are afraid of rocking the boat though but when they can no longer pay up they will be more receptive. I will make a prediction, when the new finance minister is picked he will use the occasion to say that his priority is tackling the challenging economic situation. Well the person being tackled is the taxpayer. This should be the moment the PDs walk and stand for the taxpayer. If they don't then who are they hoping to attract.

i thought pd's stood for free enterprise not the taxpayer.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

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.

it amazing how your ensuring that only those who need welfare as often as not blocks those who need it from getting it.

well i preferred to err on the side where those who need help will get it, maybe left wingers get played a bit more often but if it ensures that all who genuinely need help get that im okay with that.

you think our welfare system the legacy of de rossa's work is fair and helpful to those who need help in terms of unemployment or health benefits, care and programs, i don't, quite often its humilating and a farce.

I hope they stand for free enterprise. Then taxpayers would not have to pay so much. Any one who wanted to pay extra taxes could mail it directly to Bono or Cowen. Better still if they are foolish enough to believe that a car produces more carbon dioxide than a sheep they could mail it to Al Gore. He needs money for his jet. The worker who wants to take care of his own family could vote for the PDs in this happy scenario.

I think I saw our own fergalr speak at a PD gig and I was very, very impressed. He's an able man and if there are more like him around, there is life in the old PD dog yet.

lostexpectation wrote:

it amazing how your ensuring that only those who need welfare as often as not blocks those who need it from getting it.

well i preferred to err on the side where those who need help will get it, maybe left wingers get played a bit more often but if it ensures that all who genuinely need help get that im okay with that.

you think our welfare system the legacy of de rossa's work is fair and helpful to those who need help in terms of unemployment or health benefits, care and programs, i don't, quite often its humilating and a farce.

Its the balance, lostexpectation. Trying to find the balance. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I have a different emphasis than you have.
There are no monsters in Irish politics. Its a small town and you could not get away with extremism.
There are many extremist views held on these forums but these people will never, ever see the inside of a government cabinet.
The people will always vote down the middle.
Given this is the case and , as McDowell, said before, the filing gives the sandwich it's flavour, The Democrats may appear extreme but thats only in comparison to the mediocraty of the Centre.
Likewise with Sinn Fein.

Johnny Keogh wrote

Quote :

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.

While it's reasonable to assume that the majority are not interested in your story based on the figures, it's not so reasonable to assume based on the 'punching above its weight' that the PD party have done and continue to do.

Your mandate is limited but it is still a mandate and there's a privilege and a responsibility in holding it, as you rightly suggest by saying that you have to compromise to implement what you can.

The interesting thing for me - and I did give a preference Tom Parlon in both elections recently - is that people have an idea that the PDs are different and stand for something, even if they're not quite sure what that something is.

I think the PDs are incredibly important because there is a cohort out there - even if it's less than 5% at the moment, who feel that their needs are met by the party. And that points out deficiencies in other offerings. And it's enough to keep you going, I think.

Chin up, Johnny!

In the last GE I voted to kill the PDs, sort of sorry I did that now. The PDs have benefited Ireland considerably, and I want them to hang around. I read the free (Thanks again Mick) breaking the Mould book as far as page 270 or something just before the election, and the early days were inspirational. The trouble is , I really have no time for FF, so I'm snookered when it comes to the PDs. If Michael had walked on May 13th 2007, I would have voted.
Anyway, I thought MMD was a great MoJ. Apart from the Connolly debacle, which I wasn't impressed with.
I was, and remain supportive of his stance on raa activity.

Who knows , 2009 just around the corner.
Keep going Hiker. Ye'll get there. But will Ye call to my house next time!

youngdan wrote:

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.

It was a powerfully racist post about Africa. I can't remember the specifics, but other posters were appalled too. It was either Bono or Obama related.

youngdan wrote:

How can anybody be a libertarian and a socialist at the same time.

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

Basically I don't think humanity's only aspiration should be the formation of an elite minority. I think we can do better than that. Over time things change, they evolve, so we can't go back to the 19th century at a national level, even if at a global level, the dicatorship of the market holds sway. And if we swing further to the freemarket right, then we're finished, socially environmentally the whole lot.

One positive on that front is that democracy doesn't work out too well for such parties. Which is why we see an ongoing constriction of it. Somethings going to break on that front...

youngdan wrote:

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.

See *

youngdan wrote:

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.

Like Bush with pensions it's a ponzi scheme is what you're saying? That's complete rubbish btw particularly with our 'low' rate of unemployment and high rate of working poor and temporary contractor employment. Social welfare redistribution through taxes can continue indefinetly. What you, Ron Paul, Bush etc want it to return to the Victorian era and for it to be funded through charity and the Church. Indeed Ron Paul want's to see healthcare funded in this way.

*
On Ron Paul,

I have no trouble in saying the man's a loon and a member of the far-right (further to the right than Bush). He does not accept the theory of evolution. He has accepted donations from white supremacists. Opposes universal health care. He's also a racist, a religious nutter, a climate change denier. etc



Ron Paul: Quackery enabler
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php

FAQ: Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletter (Updated)

Ron Paul's record in Congress
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Ron Paul-Is Being Against the War Enough?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14678



Oh and I also think his antiwar credentials are paper-thin. As I outline before, see a p.ie post of mine on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=30401

Pax wrote:

Here's an interesting Ron Paul vid. By an Irish American racist and Ron Paul supporter.

Stormfront Radio Supports Ron Paul


Speaking of the far right Paul received an endorsement of the white supremacist group Stormfront and a $500 contribution from Stormfront founder Don Black. The stormfront forum has seen significant support for Paul.


Ron Paul ran for years for the Libertarian party and all his views need to be put through a far-right libertarian prism. For instance he voted against improving the levees post-Katrina. In essence he does not believe this is the role of the federal government.
Or of any government for that matter as that equates to freedom. (the freedom to have your own personal levee and/or bunker)

If a coalition of corporations, say Bechtel and Co hired Blackwater and co, were to engage in a war then Ron Paul would not have any trouble with it. In a sense this would be a return to the days of the East India Company, well moreso than in Iraq today which puts Ron Paul far further to the right than Bush. Paul would not have a problem with direct charges funding a war once they weren't taxes.

Which is why Ron Paul is against social security, apparently things were much better during the Great Depression, the 19th century etc.

Those who forget the past are doomed to sound like Ron Paul

Quote :

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

("Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . .")

His weird and incorrect views include a claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

Couple this with the fact he doesn't believe in evolution, his homophobic views, his views on abortion and the federal government and under a Paul Presidency, state governments would be free to enact the rest of the platform of the religious right. Which is one of the reasons Paul has endorsements from far right extremists.


Finally Ornicus has further reviewed “Paul’s extended history of dalliances with right-wing xenophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.”

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/10/real-ron-paul-surfaces.html

Pax. It may take some time to reply to all that but I will make a start.Bush supporters and Ron Paul are complete opposites. The African thread might appear Racist to you but the fact that they are black makes no difference. I don't want to be forced to pay 500 dollars for lads with aids from riding no matter if they were green. They are riding and I am getting screwed. If you and the appalled readers wish to give money to them that is fine. Let Bono give his money that he has in Holland. I am broke and as far as I am concerned they can ride one another to death. I don't want to give money to the Jews and I don't want to give money to the Arabs. I do not want to give money to the Germans to defend the Fulda Gap and I do not want to give money to the Koreans. I do not want to give money to the Columbians to burn drugs and I do not want to give money to the UN. I am all tapped out so you write a cheque for my share as well as your own. As regards O bama I'll take him over the other two any day. I will be back to about Paul later because people who love distribution of others hard earned few bob hate him. I you think Bush and Paul are the same you have a strange view indeed.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

Its the balance, lostexpectation. Trying to find the balance. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I have a different emphasis than you have.
There are no monsters in Irish politics. Its a small town and you could not get away with extremism.
There are many extremist views held on these forums but these people will never, ever see the inside of a government cabinet.
The people will always vote down the middle.
Given this is the case and , as McDowell, said before, the filing gives the sandwich it's flavour, The Democrats may appear extreme but thats only in comparison to the mediocraty of the Centre.
Likewise with Sinn Fein.

i never mentioned anything about extremes.
its not about monsters, it attitudes to life and others, one can recognise rightwingers very easily in what they say about people, its not always related to politics,its how they deal with everyday things, but it like their attitude to immigrants, i've seen it, heard it, it the same from american style libertarians its

Quote :

my life is shit so there's should be too

. it drips from rightwing people.

Pax. You call a libertarian a rightwinger which by the understanding of the term here is nonsence. A right winger would want a police state run for the benefit of corporations fired up with talk of nationalism and religous fervour. That is what we have here. A libertarian would like to diminish the role of government in people's lives. That is what we had after the revolution. Paul is a libertarian constitutionalist and Bush, Clinton and Barrack are statists. That definition of libertarian/socialism makes no sense because it calls for no private ownership of property. The foundation of liberty here would be strong property rights. I would call that communism and when it was tried it did not work. We do not have a free market system here but one molded to assist the large corporations. We will see how long the income distribution can continue in Ireland very soon now. He most definitely is a climate change/carbon credit etc denier because back here we are laughing at ye for believing Gore after the coldest winter in years. Just keep paying the carbon taxes back there. You also mention right to choose laws. The 3 bills that are linked to refer to preventing federal funds from funding abortions. Bad enough that you want to kill babies but you want me to pay for it. Why don't you take a trip here and go door to door asking for people to give you money to pay to pay for abortions. You will have a reason to be afraid of guns then. More to come

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

Its the balance, lostexpectation. Trying to find the balance. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I have a different emphasis than you have.
There are no monsters in Irish politics. Its a small town and you could not get away with extremism.
There are many extremist views held on these forums but these people will never, ever see the inside of a government cabinet.
The people will always vote down the middle.
Given this is the case and , as McDowell, said before, the filing gives the sandwich it's flavour, The Democrats may appear extreme but thats only in comparison to the mediocraty of the Centre.
Likewise with Sinn Fein.

i never mentioned anything about extremes.
its not about monsters, it attitudes to life and others, one can recognise rightwingers very easily in what they say about people, its not always related to politics,its how they deal with everyday things, but it like their attitude to immigrants, i've seen it, heard it, it the same from american style libertarians its

Quote :

my life is shit so there's should be too

. it drips from rightwing people.

When the siucra hits the fan, as it is now, the men with the big money need to turn the attention away from themselves, and their role, and tell the new poor that it is all the fault of the old poor. When there are more people than there are jobs, the rich need to get rid of the surplus people if they are to keep on making money. Welfare cuts, as in Bush's last budget, and war is the way.

There are only a few of the very rich, so it is very important to them that we don't scrutinise their role, which has involved accumulating enormous wealth. The middle class sliding towards poverty have a choice between the likes of Ron Paul, who appears to propose a protectionist system that would only support a fraction of the present US population, or recognising that they really have more of a common interest with the "old poor" and finding a way to work with together to rectify their situation.

The article shows how in the US rich got richer and the rest got poorer

Between 1968 and 1999 in the US
the majority of the middle class saw a drop of about 20% in incomes
the super rich saw an increase in wealth of about 800%
the richer they were, the bigger increase in income they experienced
tax cuts contributed to the increased wealth of the rich (and the deficit)
the poor may have experienced a greater drop than 20%.

This trend has continued - if anyone has more recent figures that would be appreciated.

cactus flower wrote:

This trend has continued - if anyone has more recent figures that would be appreciated.

SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME GOING TO WAGES AND SALARIES AT RECORD LOW IN 2006: Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High
http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06inc.htm

Quote :

Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record, with data going back to 1929.[1] The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record. [2]

What a proper economy looks like
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/3/10/51630/1050

Quote :

The chart shows average inflation-adjusted incomes of the poorest 20%, middle 60%, and top 1% of households since the 1970s. The incomes include government transfers and subtract taxes. For the bulk of American households, incomes have increased moderately or minimally. For those at the top, by contrast, they have soared.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/

Income Gap Is Widening, Data Shows

Quote :

He noted that the analysis was based on preliminary data and that the highest-income Americans were more likely than others to file their returns late, so his data might understate the growth in inequality.

The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

also
http://workertimes.com/news/disparity.html

To finish Pax, ye can stick that national health system back there because we don't want it here. Ireland seems to be short of trolleys. If you fell for the stormfront donation then you are the only one. The stormfront person gave Paul 500 dollars not the other way round. You must know very little about American politics if you don't know that the 3 candidates left never voted against war funding while Paul never voted for the Iraq funding. Keeping reading socialist rubbish. The next thing I expect is that you want Americans to pay for world hunger, well pay yourself from now on.

youngdan wrote:

To finish Pax, ye can stick that national health system back there because we don't want it here. Ireland seems to be short of trolleys. If you fell for the stormfront donation then you are the only one. The stormfront person gave Paul 500 dollars not the other way round. You must know very little about American politics if you don't know that the 3 candidates left never voted against war funding while Paul never voted for the Iraq funding. Keeping reading socialist rubbish. The next thing I expect is that you want Americans to pay for world hunger, well pay yourself from now on.

Look at the figures, youngdan. You are paying for the rich, not the poor. There are a few lads out there picking up big time whilst the majority are going down. The sad thing is, a market economy is supposed to depend on having people who can buy things. There are not going to be too many of them soon. And I'll sign up to feed the hungry of Chicago and Miami, the same way that native americans sent money to Ireland in the famine.

lostexpectation wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

Its the balance, lostexpectation. Trying to find the balance. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I have a different emphasis than you have.
There are no monsters in Irish politics. Its a small town and you could not get away with extremism.
There are many extremist views held on these forums but these people will never, ever see the inside of a government cabinet.
The people will always vote down the middle.
Given this is the case and , as McDowell, said before, the filing gives the sandwich it's flavour, The Democrats may appear extreme but thats only in comparison to the mediocraty of the Centre.
Likewise with Sinn Fein.

i never mentioned anything about extremes.
its not about monsters, it attitudes to life and others, one can recognise rightwingers very easily in what they say about people, its not always related to politics,its how they deal with everyday things, but it like their attitude to immigrants, i've seen it, heard it, it the same from american style libertarians its

Quote :

my life is shit so there's should be too

. it drips from rightwing people.

It drips from ignorant people, lostexpectation, neither rightwing nor leftwing; just ignorant people.

Its not fair to attribute the worst excesses of human nature to any section of political thought. An ignoramus will quite happilly be an ignoramus in a Communist State or a Fascist State or a well worked Democracy.

Johnny. Will Cannon be able to win one of the seats in Galway East or will the whole crew be humiliated.

youngdan wrote:

Johnny. Will Cannon be able to win one of the seats in Galway East or will the whole crew be humiliated.

Have'nt a bulls notion.

As for humiliation, well, been there, done that, last year.

For the P.Democrats, its as Cannon said today; if we dont improve our numbers in next years Locals, we're gone.
It's that simple but it needs to be said and often.

You see we had a top-down organisation where the top told all and sundry that everything was A-OK and not to panic.
even McDowell mentioned 15 seats at one point a couple of years ago.

What that attitude creats in an organisation is inertia and apathy.

Cannon is 100% correct. He needs to scare the bejesus out of our traditional voter.

WE ARE GONE IF YOU DONT GET OUT AND VOTE FOR US NEXT YEAR.

We need that injection of adrenaline to motivate our very demorilised and tired troops.

Hi Johnny. Are you pleased with the result. Jeez it was damned close.

So it is a case of All In. We might see Cannon propose something decent then.

youngdan wrote:

So it is a case of All In. We might see Cannon propose something decent then.

What he needs is a few small "wins". What they will be, I'm not sure. They will help confidence which is wafer thin at present.

to me a "win" would be to propose a policy that is a little off the beaten track.
in the end, its all about the economy, but I listen to Labour these days and even they are sounding like we do; public service reform and efficiancy, help small business to create employment etc etc.

What I hope Ciaran Cannon does is pick a policy no one else is looking at or is big into at present. Just a few small ones that will give us an edge.

For me the best three would be
Divorce; abandon this ridiculas 5 year seperation rule.
Euthanasia; Begin the debate on assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
Abortion; Irish woman do not have abortions! I dont think so. Lets discuss how it might happen and how it would be managed.

Focusing on an issue or two would be a good direction for any of the parties but you need to get your heads seen above the parapet. Maybe you'll be lucky and people won't shoot at you but instead give you a few votes. Few of the other parties are doing this though I feel that Fine Gael in trying to go for the throat of the HSE (news of it about to be split - anyone know anything?) is a good move for them... The Green Party I wish would go after Education and Social Justice but definitely ye need in the PDs to try to pull yourselves up by the bootstraps now and an issue might be no harm to focus on.

(only good can come of it, even if it doesn't work for ye)

I heard a presentation lately about how Economies typically see Social Justice as a benefit of economic prosperity, not as something in itself to aim for. To some point I agree it has to be like this but only up to some point; I think now is the time for us to pursue Social Justice as an end in itself for this reason: the future will mean scarcities in many things - food oil water but aren't we forgetting that there will too be a scarcity of professionals with skills? At present we have a 25% rate of functional illiteracy and still plenty of the type of thing that is going on in Limerick, in Moy Ross.

So, how does the PD philosophy fit things like Social Justice into its World View? And do ye talk about these grand things at meetings and one to one etc?