Seem to be a nothing much budget, just tinkering around the edges again. Good to see low income folks out of tax net & that standard tax band widened more which will proportionatly benefit tax payers the less they earn.
Its clear FF are keen to move from right of centre to left of centre for next election as thats where the opposition are positioning themselves. FF already have the right of centre vote snapped up as little competition except for PDs here 'n there. If FF compete well & electorate fall for it then they certain to win next election.
Does the last election not count or something? Is it not the best example of how Fianna Fáil are going to behave again? As to the unemployment and debt, those problems were of course created by Fianna Fáil, and as usual everyone else had to mop up after them.Originally Posted by Conor74
adam
Your profuse apology and humble concession is accepted....
I was being facetious Conor. It's funny that you say this and then go on to argue the point though.
Last edited by dahamsta; 03/12/2004 at 2:04 AM.
FF/PD coalition have only been in power since 1997 so they can't claim sole responsiblity for current boom as it had already started (96-97) by time they elected.
I think irish politics has become so focused on concensus that aside from SF there little difference anymore & also budget has little significance either. I'm looking for now & knew in advance that budget would have zero difference to my chances either way.
Conor74..correct ...
Ok history lesson. Deficit budgeting in earnest began under FG/Labour in 1973 the Finance minister was Richie Ryan. But it got brutal altogether under two different regimes . The 1977-79 FF Government under the late Jack Lynch appointed an economist Dr. Martin O'Donoghue to a newly formed Department of Economic Planning. Then came the 1982-87 FG/Labour regime under an Economist as Taoiseach, Dr. Garret Fitzgerald. These bozos combined, mostly the latter two, buggered up the economy for decades to come by KEEPING ALL THEIR ELECTION PROMISES! When the economy did not generate enough revenue to fulfill them the governments concerned borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. Fitzgerald's bunch taking a £13 million national debt and turning it into a £26 million national debt. And all we got for that was dole payments to 300,000 plus people and mass emigration.
Two morals here, 1/ Never allow an economist anywhere near your economy 2/ Governments who occasionally break their promises are better for your country in the long run.
Last edited by CollegeTillIDie; 02/12/2004 at 7:57 PM.
I presume you meant billion there...
There's a misconception that a budget deficit is necessarily a bad thing. IMO one McCreevy's big mistakes (leaving aside his tax policies) was the fact he was too hung up on breaking even, when we were (and still are) crying out for infrastructure investment. There would've been no problem going into deficit for capital investment programmes.
It's just the same as personal finances - debt isn't a problem if your buying an asset (eg mortgage for property, loan for a car), it only becomes a problem when it's going on current (everyday) spending....
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Prime example of doing it wrong - he's national the national debt to fund tax cuts.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
Irish national debt now only 30% of GDP or GNP (not sure which they use) which by international standards is very low.
Yanks ar eonly trying to half their annual deficit in next 4 years so that instead of 4 trillion annual deficit would "only" be 2 trillion.
Always found it kinda strange how Amercian Republicans preech their Democrates about tax & spend yet historically the republicans always cut taxes but continue to spend so have huge deficits.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks