Progressive Democrats

[Oppenheimer]

Do we need them now more than ever? Their central economic policy was smaller government and lower taxes.

What we're getting now is bigger government with higher taxes. As people's spending power diminishes, the unemployment rate will soar - more people on social welfare, medical cards, etc., etc., means even higher taxes for those fortunate enough to be in work. Easy to see how a cycle of increasing job losses will be started by such a policy.

I would now love to hear the views of Charlie McCreevey (who in his heart and soul was a PD and who more than any one individual can claim credit for the Celtic Tiger) on the Government's management of this crisis.

Can you list the evidence behind and explain this claim - this is surely one of the most bizarre comments I have seen to date on p.ie?

On the other hand, if you are giving him credit for the Celtic Tiger we all now see in hindsight, i.e., the superficial credit creation, insane unidimensional focus on property, the increase of the working population (which included the chastisement and dereliction of constitutional protections for the family) at all costs to the lobbying of foreign owned business, and the "spend it when we have it and we won't when we don't" school of insanonomics then I take your point.

[Clanrickard]

Only an idiot ikn complete denial would even suggest a return to government policies that we have had this past few decades. When did Poland enjoy socialism?

From 1945 till 1989. A wee hint....the socialists rubber ducked the country completely. Yes some policies were wrong but it had more to do with secrecy, gombeenism and mismanagement than the ideological persuasion of the government.

[COMMIE]

Seen the leader of the PD's has departed. Who is now leader of this group? And were does this leave Barmy Harney at the moment?

[Phinaeus]

It just strikes me that FF & Greens are returning to the failed policies of tax and spend. It costs a small fortune to employ anyone in this country. And once again we'll get into a situation whereby people on social welfare are actually financially better off than those in lower paid employment. By increasing the basic rates of tax the government are ensuring that tax revenues will actually fall according to the law of diminishing returns.

I'd love to see someone with the balls of McCreevey coming in and saying that well actually taxes are still too high - let's slash them further rather than increase them, but at the same time also cut back on big government. Lot of civil servants would end up on the dole temporarily but would in a short time find employment in our once again burgeoning private sector.

As Charlie would have said, Cowen and Lenihan are both at the end of the day lily-livered pinkos who don't have the imagination or verve to think outside the box.

[Eorna]

Do we need them now more than ever? Their central economic policy was smaller government and lower taxes.

What we're getting now is bigger government with higher taxes. As people's spending power diminishes, the unemployment rate will soar - more people on social welfare, medical cards, etc., etc., means even higher taxes for those fortunate enough to be in work. Easy to see how a cycle of increasing job losses will be started by such a policy.

I would now love to hear the views of Charlie McCreevey (who in his heart and soul was a PD and who more than any one individual can claim credit for the Celtic Tiger) on the Government's management of this crisis.

Read the papers. The countries that had similar policies to the PD's are countries that are facing bankruptcy. Ireland, Britain, America. They are dragging the rest of the world down as well. As a person who set up a small business, when I was made redundant, I have always disliked the PD's. I could never understand, how a party, that was made up of lifetime politicians like Harney, the o'Malleys, Molloy. How can a party that has no understanding of the real world, only a perspective derived from a idealogical position have any positive impact. They were meant to be the party of ethics, yet the greatest corruption in the history of the state went on while they were in Govt. The backed a Taoiseach who "won" money on the horses, McDowell bought a farm in North Dublin for a prison, for a price that could have bought 15 of the neighbouring farms, the logic behind that will be interesting when it comes out. They were the problem, and they have as much credibility as the Communist party.

[Oppenheimer]

It just strikes me that FF & Greens are returning to the failed policies of tax and spend. It costs a small fortune to employ anyone in this country. And once again we'll get into a situation whereby people on social welfare are actually financially better off than those in lower paid employment. By increasing the basic rates of tax the government are ensuring that tax revenues will actually fall according to the law of diminishing returns.

I'd love to see someone with the balls of McCreevey coming in and saying that well actually taxes are still too high - let's slash them further rather than increase them, but at the same time also cut back on big government. Lot of civil servants would end up on the dole temporarily but would in a short time find employment in our once again burgeoning private sector.

As Charlie would have said, Cowen and Lenihan are both at the end of the day lily-livered pinkos who don't have the imagination or verve to think outside the box.

Let's take a look though at the consequences of spending too much in a boom. If you are a homeowner with, say a mortgage and a car as debt elements you have to pay off among other bills you have in the current sense, you need to earn enough to cover all that spend, whether you have a job or not. So when you have a job you save and ensure that in the event you do not you have a reserve to fall back on. McCreepy lowered taxes in the boom, and spent whatever current money was available.

Now Ireland is effectively unemployed and we have no reserve, but more worryingly, with the lowest level of compulsory tax, i.e., much of our tax base is discretionary (others would call it stealth based) - there is no direct control on the management of revenue so now the current Govt., whether they are Cowen and Lenihan, Steptoe and Son, Obama and Biden or Morecambe and Wise, have no where to go except to raise taxes.

If we had raised taxes in the boom, your policy would pay off, i.e., there would have been latitude to lower them now to encourage spending. So pardon me if I don't share your opinion of the McCreepy lily-white, I think he has done MORE to destitute the country than any other.

[hopi watcher]

From 1945 till 1989. A wee hint....the socialists rubber ducked the country completely. Yes some policies were wrong but it had more to do with secrecy, gombeenism and mismanagement than the ideological persuasion of the government.

The point is it wasn't socialism and if you think it was, then that explains you adoration of all things rightwing.

[hopi watcher]

[QUOTE=Phinaeus;1519820]
I'd love to see someone with the balls of McCreevey coming in and saying that well actually taxes are still too high - let's slash them further rather than increase them, but at the same time also cut back on big government. QUOTE]

Turkeys and christmas!!!

[Phinaeus]

McCreepy lowered taxes in the boom, and spent whatever current money was available.

Yes, he did cut taxes (not a crime despite what all the lefties here say) but he was not a spendthrift when it came to tax-payers' money - built up the highest pension reserve we've ever had which the current bunch of mediocrities are about to dip into.

It strikes me that the three main parties have all now adapted a centre left stance on economic issues. The smaller parties (SF, Greens and Socialist Workers) are all hard left. No wonder Fintan O'Toole is looking so smug these days. The more people on the dole then the more people to listen to his discredited leftist ramblings.

And we who see the good sense of right wing economic policies have no-one to vote for!

[Oppenheimer]

Yes, he did cut taxes (not a crime despite what all the lefties here say) but he was not a spendthrift when it came to tax-payers' money - built up the highest pension reserve we've ever had which the current bunch of mediocrities are about to dip into.

It strikes me that the three main parties have all now adapted a centre left stance on economic issues. The smaller parties (SF, Greens and Socialist Workers) are all hard left. No wonder Fintan O'Toole is looking so smug these days. The more people on the dole then the more people to listen to his discredited leftist ramblings.

And we who see the good sense of right wing economic policies have no-one to vote for!

That's because those who do have right wing leanings are undercover or are temporarily in a position to HAVE to adopt left wing policies because a) they would be lynched by current public sentiment and b) there is no option, as I said earlier, but to raise taxes, largely because of your hero's influence.

Cutting taxes is not a crime, but cutting taxes when the opportunity to raise revenue even more (hint: this even larger surplus could have meant that tax raises now were less) existed was stupid, i.e., a crime of intelligence, if you like.