Inward investment – great for a while but every other economy in the World builds something off the back of it. Our gobshites didn’t. We’re screwed now because we can’t compete with Ndugu on $2 an hour.

Greens = taxing poor people under the guise of ‘enviornment’ to sustain the system. Case in point: the new ‘Motor Tax bands’ of 2008. They already have the bullshit out there about new cars being ‘greener’. They are if you keep them for 30 years ( to offset the pollution caused in making them ). Incidentally, daisys do not grow out the exhaust pipes of new cars.

I agree that there are many stupid cunts out there when it comes to voting. One comedian described it as a ‘DeValera switch on the heart’ which gets triggered in a polling booth.

Thick ( especially rural ) FF cunts are the same as VW and Ford people. They’d always buy one because their father / grandfather bought one, even if they bring out an arsehole on wheels. Same with FF.

Living in Australia you’d know a thing or two about immigration control. Our thick bastards fell asleep for 10 years. I’m all for broadening society, but the level of it here has been disproportionate and unsustainable. The govt. effectively destroyed the unskilled labour market for the benefit of their own greedy shopkeepers / Hoteliers / Publicans etc.

Lisbon my hole. Along with Britain we discriminate against Romanians and Bulgarians ( visa system though they are members ). So, half of Nigeria and China can come here en masse, but when it comes to “fellow europeans” it’s “fuck off please”.

Last but not least, you strayed off the napkin kindly provided as a background by twenty in your reply ( though there are several rumours as to where it has been ). I’m sorry Mr.Weekend, but for this you deserve to be shot.

Firstly, he argues that there’s no mention of the Kenny Report, which we’ve been arguing for since our foundation, in the Programme for Government. I’m not sure if it’s mentioned in the document, but the Greens have already secured its main recommendation (or, at least, the consequence of it) by placing an 80% windfall tax on any profits made by land speculation and development. That ensures – as the Kenny report argued for – that the majority of profit made by land speculation/development accrues to the public, and not to a select group of private people. So I think he’s wrong on his point about the Kenny Report, although he’s absolutely correct on the point about rent reviews.

Secondly, his point about the PfG containing references to a bank windfall tax (or “levy” as these things now seem to be called) is a bit rubbish. If NAMA legislation didn’t call for a bank levy in the future, he’d be the first to mention it. It’s important that when those banks which can be restored are restored, that they foot any potential bill for the cost of that restoration. O’Toole criticises the levy for only kicking in when it wouldn’t force the banks under, but what else would he prefer? Would he prefer a punitive bank levy? That’d defeat the entire purpose of NAMA: why would we rescue banks with tax money only to sink them with tax bills later? Of course a bank levy should take into account their profitability – all this would be a waste of time if it wasn’t.

Thirdly and finally, he claims that all this reform is meaningless when compared with NAMA, which has succumbed to that shite idea that NAMA is somehow the only issue (or even the primary issue) facing the state financially. It’s not. Even if NAMA loses every penny of the €7 billion overpayment, that’s less than a third of what the government is borrowing this year alone.

The real issue of future debt is partially in NAMA, but not wholly so. The overwhelming amount of our debt this year is from state borrowing. The same is likely to be true for at least the next four years. And if the government dares to try and cut public expenditure, you can be sure that O’Toole will be the first to criticise.

It’s not a bad article, but his fixation on NAMA shows, to me anyway, that he’s unwilling to examine other aspects of government debt.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1013/1224256508947.html

My point was more the fact that, like with the global warming debate, everyone thinks they’re an expert. Every time there’s a new article full of facts everyone is clambering over eachother to throw figures around and feel like they know something the others don’t.

From what I’ve read about NAMA, as a layperson, I think it sounds a very smart move. And I am talking about the actual details of the proposal and how it will work rather than the various opinions people have expressed about it. I absolutely concede that I may be wrong but I think we’re at a point where we need to make a move or we won’t have a move to make. Fannying around until everyone is in agreement will see us all in our graves.

I agree we have to kick up a fuss to bring the necessary changes, I just meant people need to understand that none of the wink wink nod nod stuff is going to change overnight and that I don’t think a change of government now would bring about any difference in that regard.