|
Ligur posted:Oh God, yeah, forbidden words. No, not forbidden words. Just poo poo words and it should not be too much to ask to acknowledge them as such.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 11:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
Soi-hah posted:No, not forbidden words. Just poo poo words and it should not be too much to ask to acknowledge them as such. Can't disagree with this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2011 13:26
|
|
|
 The elections for the next president has transformed from a one-man show to a duel of giants recently with the sudden announcement by SDP-heavyweight Paavo "Moses" Lipponen - the man who engineered Finland to the euro - that he will run for president. Now NC's eurosceptic Sauli Niinistö has a rival he can appreciate. People have pointed out the irony of the setup of having two presidential candidates who have an opposing view of the euro within their respective parties. Meanwhile, the Center Party's old veteran political fox and anti-Helsinki activist Paavo Väyrynen is still met with awkward silence within his party to his loudly voiced intentions to run as president. But since Mari Kiviniemi has said she's not running, there doesn't seem to be any liable alternatives atm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 10:34
|
|
|
This election is going to be quite interesting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 13:15
|
|
|
Triple A posted:This election is going to be quite interesting. Hell yeah. I thought this was going to be a cakewalk for Niinistö. Still voting for him because gently caress - it's the president, so I'm just going by who I like more, but we could actually see some good debates and such from these two political giants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 13:55
|
|
|
If you're not voting for Väyrynen, idk wtf you're thinking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
Väyrynen should run, just for the humor that would ensue when he realizes no one likes him and he starts blaming the "mediapeli" for not getting any success. He's a career politician of the worst kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:If you're not voting for Väyrynen, idk wtf you're thinking. Seriously would rather vote for Väyrynen than either of Lipponen or Niinistö.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
Emetic Hustler posted:Väyrynen should run, just for the humor that would ensue when he realizes no one likes him and he starts blaming the "mediapeli" for not getting any success. He's a career politician of the worst kind. So far he's the only runner from CP. I would think that Mari Kiviniemi will step up, maybe Esko Aho and possibly even Olli Rehn and Seppo Kääriäinen. Väyrynen has his die-hard supporters, but now that he's not even in the parliament let alone a minister, it will be harder for him to stay in the spotlights. Speaking of mediapeli... Juhani Suomi: "I had to lock up foreign minister Väyrynen in his hotel room in Warsaw to prevent him from harming Finland's reputation."   
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Niinistö will still win, hands down. Right now it is hard to imagine a president that is not a Social Democrat or a National Coalitionist. Niinistö is respected across party divisions, and has a whiff of populist streak in him, which is a winning recipe. He will also benefit from the European turn to the right that has been going on for a few years, and the overall miserable condition of the left. I'll accept mocking emptyquotes if it turns out I was wrong. Lipponen is the last of the grumpy old autocratic men to really make it in Finnish politics, he's totally a character of the past. Just compare him to the party chairs of the present. His behaviour in the recent years has also been such (hehhh "so what", and I can lobby all the gas pipes I want  ) that I don't think that he was initially planning to run, but has changed his mind only recently. He's the only Social Democrat that could even dream of challenging Niinistö, but will still lose.Whoever will run from the Centre will just make him/herself ridiculous, so I greatly look forward to it. It will also be interesting to see if Soini will run, because the polls show minimal support for him. Soini might be crazy popular, but not at all as a presidential candidate, because the position is considered to have a certain prestige that Soini doesn't have. Soini performing poorly might hamper the upcoming TF advance in 2012 municipal elections, but so might passing this chance of free publicity, so it will be interesting to see what sort of strategy Soini chooses. It doesn't really matter who the president is, but the presidential elections are a handy indicator of change in Finnish political atmosphere. It actually surprises me how the slowly creeping change has really accumulated in the past six years... (I'll vote for Haavisto (of the Greens), because he's a likable and intelligent man, and because I hope that Haavisto will get a larger share of the votes than Greens did in the last parliamentary election, so that it would serve as another little wake-up call for the party.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Just a quick heads-up: Since the name True Finns has a... uh, let's say a slightly pompous flavor, the party has decided that from now on the official english form is: The Finns That sure cleared things up. Fortunately we can still use TF.  In Center Party news, (EU commissar) Olli Rehn has decided he won't run as president. Meanwhile the party vice chairman has ended the silence about Paavo Väyrynen by saying he's "ashamed in behalf of Väyrynen" for going the route of cheap populism and hindsight. Väyrynen has already angrily called the party leaders of losing the ball "completely". Which might be true, since is this any way to build up to the presidential elections by rocking the boat? Still, some bitter infighting always lightens up the mood of any political scene. No. 1 Callie Fan fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Just a quick heads-up: Since the name True Finns has a... uh, let's say a slightly pompous flavor, the party has decided that from now on the official english form is: I still prefer Tesco Value Finns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
I say bring back the hat system instead of using abstract names like "The Finns". The Green Party can wear sombraros and True Finns can wear viking helmets, for exmaple. That way us foreigners will know the political ideology based on "the Viking-helmet Finns" and "Sombraro-Finns".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
vuohi posted:Soini performing poorly might hamper the upcoming TF advance in 2012 municipal elections, but so might passing this chance of free publicity, so it will be interesting to see what sort of strategy Soini chooses. Most probably I'm voting Haavisto. Unlike everyone else he's not a grumpy old man and would be a nice face to have for a Head of State.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 11:16
|
|
|
Esko Kiesi posted:Seriously would rather vote for Väyrynen than either of Lipponen or Niinistö. Thirded. If I have to choose between has-been liars from a decade ago, I'll reward Paavo's persistence by voting for the liar that has the most explanations for everything he does or does not do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 11:24
|
|
|
I've been thinking about going to some street corner, demanding money "or else my friends and I will vote for Väyrynen!" Haavisto will probably be my choice, too, because Lipponen is such a scumbag corporate whore that I can't imagine how SDP even lets him march under their party flag anymmore. If Haavisto doesn't make it to the second round against Niinistö, I may have to, just once in my lifetime, vote for the national coalition's candidate. Gods forgive me. I don't know if you've covered this already in the previous pages, but a funny thing about the pirate party. They would've had a candidate, too, but the government officials didn't accept electronic signatures, even though everyone signing had to identify themselves using their bank account. Not good enough! It's yet another way of keeping the small parties small, as they can't afford to have people gathering tens of thousands of signatures on paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
Looking at the slate of presidential candidates, with the exception of Haavisto, those reforms to remove power from the President can't come soon enough. Reforms that Haavisto supports, coincidentally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 16:37
|
|
|
I've always figured that the president has too little power. Sure, there shouldn't be any Kekkonen style "You all listen to me y'hear!" status, but there should be a bit more notable role for the only position for which there is a direct vote. Ministers, in turn, should have their power reduced, as they get chosen by the parties and they can pick whoever for the job. That's not very democratic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:I've always figured that the president has too little power. Sure, there shouldn't be any Kekkonen style "You all listen to me y'hear!" status, but there should be a bit more notable role for the only position for which there is a direct vote. Ministers, in turn, should have their power reduced, as they get chosen by the parties and they can pick whoever for the job. That's not very democratic. This. It's ridiculous that the directly elected representative is basically one step above a constitutional monarch when it comes to power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 20:25
|
|
|
The Prime Minister is the (almost always, these days) leader of the party that can marshal the most votes in Parliament behind them; and, again these days the leader of the largest party in Parliament to boot; and MPs are elected by vote in a democratic election. Ministers are almost always elected representatives as well, despite there being no constitutional requirement for it! What's not democratic about all this? Yes, I am being facetious. But I find the argument that parliamentarism is somehow "undemocratic" similarly disingenuous. It's plenty democratic, it's just not the type of democracy that bans minarets and gay marriage. The marvel of elected representatives is that sometimes they do, in fact, know better to do the right thing. I also like the fluidity and dynamism of parliamentarism, where the government can be turned over if the Parliament so desires, and where elections are every four years as opposed to every six (and with the re-election of the incumbent a near certainty, meaning Presidents actually serve for twelve years). The fact that presidential elections still attract more of a turnout than parliamentary ones, even though the latter ones actually matter, just speaks of the kind of gas station café populism that is so widespread these days, and the kind of politics that focuses on singular people instead of ideology or parties. I mean I still don't get why Niinistö is so immensely popular. My best guess is that he hasn't actually been "in politics" for several years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:In Center Party news, -- some bitter infighting always lightens up the mood of any political scene.  and what would be too much already.My very special love goes to the former PM Kiviniemi who was a fierce supporter of the PIGS-guarantees prior to the election night, but has now made almost a full U-turn. Whooops. Well this might be what professionals do, give their customers what they want, but it's just so extremely pathetic that these people could not see the writing on the wall before the election. The Center should have just honestly embraced what they are, a huge special interest party of people who live in the woods, and not some fancy-schmancy "euro-positive liberals", which they aren't and will never be. (Another giant )I also have no loving clue what motivates Väyrynen, the guy that could not be made up by anyone if he didn't exist already. Is he just trolling the media endlessly with inane poo poo, keeping his name in the headlines, until the Center Party chooses its candidate? Does he seriously think he has snowball's chance in hell against Niinistö, or even Lipponen? Well who knows! Maybe he's just one of God's cruel jokes, all Sartre on the outside but true Finnish rural party schemer on the inside?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Antti posted:I also like the fluidity and dynamism of parliamentarism, where the government can be turned over if the Parliament so desires, and where elections are every four years as opposed to every six (and with the re-election of the incumbent a near certainty, meaning Presidents actually serve for twelve years). IMO it might be good if the President could veto the government's decisions but had very little power otherwise. That would turn the office into sort of a last-line safety trigger for the people. Right now the only demographic the President is even remotely relevant for are the felons convicted for life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
For what its worth I'd heavily recommend sticking with a six year system. Permanent campaigns seem a lot less prevalent with them which leaves the President free to actually make unpopular but necessary decisions. You might look at having a one term limit with the six year system, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 16:46
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:For what its worth I'd heavily recommend sticking with a six year system. Permanent campaigns seem a lot less prevalent with them which leaves the President free to actually make unpopular but necessary decisions. You might look at having a one term limit with the six year system, though. Hahaha, unpopular decisions from the president of Finland! Hahaha! No, let me rephrase that... Hahaha, decisions from the president of Finland! Hahahahahaha!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
But if he doesn't do anything why worry about him being in office too long?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Saw this on the EU bailout of Greece, and Finland's new deal. "Greek Bailout Spins Toward Crisis; EU Leaders Still Feckless" http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/23/greek-bailout-spins-toward-crisis-eu-leaders-still-feckless/ excerpt from the article: "As eurozone countries prepare to cough up the necessary funds for Greece’s bailout, the news that just one country — Finland — has struck a side deal with Athens to ensure Greece does not default on Finnish loans threatens to shake up the entire bailout. The FT reports: The Greco-Finnish collateral deal, reached last week between the countries’ two finance ministers, would force Athens to deposit millions of euros in cash into an escrow account, as insurance that Greece would not default on Helsinki’s portion of the rescue. But the deal – tacitly allowed by eurozone leaders at their emergency summit last month – has reopened the debate over the entire bail-out, with some countries, including Austria, Slovenia and Slovakia, insisting they want similar deals. The cluelessness of Europe’s leaders never ceases to amaze — and at this point, to frighten. Of course when the Finns get collateral, voters in every other European country wonder why they can’t have some too. And any signs that the Greek bailout will have to be renegotiated yet again will spook markets. As Moody’s put it: “The message sent by the calls for such agreements confirms that Europe is conflicted over the very decision to provide financial support to its members.”"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:But if he doesn't do anything why worry about him being in office too long? I don't know. I'd like the president to actually DO something and be in office for 6-12 years, but the office is basically just a figurehead. Probably will be changed when Lipponen or Niinistö become presidents, I don't think they are the like to sit on the sidelines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Probably will be changed when Lipponen or Niinistö become presidents, I don't think they are the like to sit on the sidelines. Not only would they be unable to do anything about it other than tell the government to make such a law, Lipponen has stated that he's all for the president being just a figurehead. Of course he's a prick and a capitalist scumbag, so he probably wasn't honest with that. Goddamn I loathe that man. That Niinistö is more left than he is (at least in my head) says a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Uh oh. Germany's Angela Merkel replied "nein you dumkopf blond mongol" to Jutta's collateral agreement with Greece, them being not happy of Finland pushing their own agenda when circumstances demand a more united effort. Suddenly Germany has pulled the rug from under the government coalition. The problem? The government has written the requirement of a collateral from Greece for further bailouts, so now the government has been forced to start anew. This is a deeply humiliating blow; especially to the SDP and treasury minister Jutta Urpilainen, who supervised the collateral agreement. And Soini is gloating from the bushes. If bad goes to worse, this might break up the coalition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
Rexroom posted:Uh oh. Germany's Angela Merkel replied "nein you dumkopf blond mongol" to Jutta's collateral agreement with Greece, them being not happy of Finland pushing their own agenda when circumstances demand a more united effort. Suddenly Germany has pulled the rug from under the government coalition. The problem? The government has written the requirement of a collateral from Greece for further bailouts, so now the government has been forced to start anew. This is a deeply humiliating blow; especially to the SDP and treasury minister Jutta Urpilainen, who supervised the collateral agreement. And Soini is gloating from the bushes. If bad goes to worse, this might break up the coalition. The devil in me wants to watch it all crash and burn. TF in the government. Illegalise abortion. 9 years in prison for shoplifting. Close the borders. Kick out the immigrants. And the funny thing is, even then the Finnish sheeples wouldn't rig up their molotov cocktails and storm the streets. There would be one demonstration with a few hundred people tops, and that would be that. Seriously, though, I would love a government that could actually make some sensible decisions, like raise income taxes for the well-earning folks and leave value-added tax be. Capital gain should be equalised with income, so that they both get taxed using the same progression. In other words, I'd like a government without the national coalition loving things up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 13:51
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:And the funny thing is, even then the Finnish sheeples wouldn't rig up their molotov cocktails and storm the streets. There would be one demonstration with a few hundred people tops, and that would be that. Complacency is a major problem in first world countries. Also, I know this is the Finnish politics thread and complaining should be a factor, but compared to US (pun), the Finns have absolutely nothing to complain about in terms of "wanting a government that makes sensible decisions".
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Dead Man Posting posted:Complacency is a major problem in first world countries. Catching chlamydia may not be as bad as catching the clap, but it's still going to give you that special burning sensation at the most vulnerable part of you as a result of a badly executed decisive maneuver at the nearest pub.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:Seriously, though, I would love a government that could actually make some sensible decisions, like raise income taxes for the well-earning folks and leave value-added tax be. Capital gain should be equalised with income, so that they both get taxed using the same progression. In other words, I'd like a government without the national coalition loving things up. Problem with raising income taxes for the well-earning folks is that there tend to be very few of them, and they tend to gently caress off when you raise their taxes enough. I'm not saying they should become completely exempt (like USA!) but the top 10% or top 1% earners can't fix our issues alone, not by a long shot. If you want to tax salaries in a meaningful way, meaningful in the sense it shows in the budget the next year, you must attack the middle class. But even the the middle class is ears deep in debt in expensive places like, say Helsinki, and might become angered and vote wrong the next election. It's impossible to tax the bottom 30% any more than they already are. poo poo, they should get reliefs for utilities and such in my opinion. I hate the idea of touching VAT (unless it's going down) but I don't really see how rising taxes can help the deficit unless you hit just about everyone with it. In fact, I'm not sure how tax hikes can really help at all in the long run because our deficit is going to go up because we're going to have very slow economic growth for the next decade or two, if any. So obviously you CAN'T hike taxes each year a little more, and hope "that'll fix it!" because that's Magical Thinking which says next year the economy booms like *BANG* - especially when you tax the gently caress out of everyone, it really does not boom. Cut expenses. Let people keep their money and spend it in Finland. Ligur fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 10:40
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Problem with raising income taxes for the well-earning folks is that there tend to be very few of them, and they tend to gently caress off when you raise their taxes enough. I'm not saying they should become completely exempt (like USA!) but the top 10% or top 1% earners can't fix our issues alone, not by a long shot. Your entire post is a crock of bullshit, but the bolded part just takes the prize for ignorant remarks. Sit down and think through what you're saying here. But hey, do tell how countercyclical spending is a bad thing and how it's literally impossible to tax the rich because they'll move away en masse. It's also really really cute how you try to feign concern for the poor and them end your post with 'cut expenses', as if it's not precisely the poor who are hit the hardest when politicians start cutting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 11:19
|
|
|
I was sure you'd love my post  edit: But why do you think I "feign" concern for the less wealthy? Why is it that, every time someone says something a leftie or a socialist does not like, he automatically assumes the person in question is then by default lying about everything else which isn't totally disagreeable? Tell you what, if you think I'm "feigning" everything except the things you already do not agree with or dislike, just ignore the post. It's completely impossible to discuss anything over the internet between two people if the other presumes the other one simply feigns or lies when not in complete disagreement already. By the way for anyone who wonders why I mentioned cutting costs, public expenditure has gone up tremendously in the past two decades (not to mention in three), and nobody thinks the services are any better. Talk with someone who has been employed by the, say, social services, and he'll probably inform you they have four times as many project managers, office and service clerks, instructors, educators and special experts (the correct term is actually "other professionals", whatever that means), but just as few field workers as they had two decades ago per customer - as those who attend social services are now called. Psychologists and mental nurses are by far outnumbered by, say, office workers and the management. Increasing expenditure does not automatically mean better care for the poor or better services, as everyone should know. I hope. It is easy to create incredible wastage in public services, just as it is in any large industry when you manage money someone else gives you. And since Mr. Bore asked why countercyclical spending is a bad thing, I don't think it is. When'd I say it is? Oh... he probably says I'm feigning  Cute. Maybe some harsh words on the internet will set me straight! Public spending is a lot of other things as well and, as outlined above, I am very much in doubt we are managing our countercyclical spending as well as we could. Aaargh and he also thinks I'm saying it's totally impossible to tax the rich and they should be exempt. HOW IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO READ A POST THAT WRONG?! It isn't, but taxing them too much is counter-productive. Anyway exempting the super rich completely was a jab at what happened in USA - say, when Bush said the honest farmer now doesn't have to pay taxes for inheriting the small farm, he actually meant the ultra-rich when inheriting $10 billion, and nobody else really was any better off, for an anecdote. I was trying to say that's exactly what shouldn't happen either because I figured someone will attack me from being an evil capitalist for suggesting you shouldn't slap 60% income tax on the rich. Oh, now I must be lying because he couldn't understand the message but - naturally, read it the worst way possible. Ligur fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 12:50
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I was sure you'd love my post Why is it that right-wingers get their panties in a twist because somebody calls them out when they say that they care about the poor and in the same breath propose policies that gently caress over the poor? Still waiting for your explanation as for why the rich would move away en-masse just because they have to pay more tax, by the way, but then again it's not surprising that you'd seize on a part of my post and use that as a bad excuse for ragging on lefties and socialists for not wanting to debate your unsupported horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 13:33
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why is it that right-wingers get their panties in a twist because somebody calls them out when they say that they care about the poor and in the same breath propose policies that gently caress over the poor? Added stuff above, read again. I actually went to a little trouble to try and explain my viewpoint. If I may guess: you'll still reply with "right-wingers, horseshit, you are wrong and stupid, cussword #1, cussword #2, you lie and don't mean what you say if I don't disagree with it completely" and possibly demand me to explain myself further - without bothering to explain yourself, apart from the fact things you don't agree with are right-wing and horseshit. Also why is it that people like Cerebral Bore are so impolite and can't write a sentence without attacking someone or cussing? My panties are in a twist? Tell me which of us is raging on the internet, and which of us is at least trying to be polite? Again how am I suggesting policies that gently caress over the poor? Increased public expenses does not mean better services for the poor and vice versa as Finland or for example Great Britain are great proof of. And again, why do you think I must feign or lie if I say something you don't except me to say, or do not totally disagree with already? Listen if I didn't give a poo poo about the poor or wanted to cut social services off from everyone, I'll tell you a secret: I could simply say so. And nothing bad would befall me for saying it. Hence I don't have a reason to lie or feign anything. That you must believe that I still do tells us more of your problems, not mine. I'll wring it to you from wire: I don't think you should raise income or capital income taxation of high earners to exceedingly high levels (well, they are, I'm a mid-earner and about 50% of anything I earn goes to taxes already, please let me have the rest ok and choose where I spend them?) nor have them totally exempt either because I still believe in the transfer of wealth - but not in a bloated public sector lead by people addicted to spending someone else's money. Healthcare, social sector are all important things to me (or am I lying?) but we can do it with less money. I don't think the public sector is simply able to spend money as efficiently or manage it as well because it's not their money really - as we can see, since if it takes more and more of our GPD each year, but services actually degrade even during an economic boom, something is not done right. edit: Jesus. quote:not wanting to debate your unsupported horseshit. You are actually of the opinion that out of us two, I am not debating but that you are? Ligur fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Ligur posted:I was sure you'd love my post Don't worry, there are plenty of people who love your posts! As a someone who HAS talked to several social workers and has an aunt working as one, cutting costs isn't the solution for this stuff. Only reason there aren't as much social workers and "mental nurses" is because there is a very bad shortage of educated professionals. Your fake worry about poor people is just made worse when you make willfully ignorant post about social services and their funding. But hey, gently caress those greedy educators and instructors. We should just have some nurses straight out of trade school to work with depressed and schizophrenic people. Trying to educate emergency staff is just wasteful spending! Giving tax exempts to renovations is much more important. You are right in something though. Increasing expenditure does not automatically mean better care. It would be really wasted if there weren't people to coordinate how the funds are spent. You know, people like project managers. e:spell checking and stuff, posting when having a fever isn't really smart. Even less smart is reading ignored Ligur posts. Fated To Be Fat fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
OgO posted:Your fake worry about poor people is just made worse when you make willfully ignorant post about social services and their funding. But hey, gently caress those greedy educators and instructors. We should just have some nurses straight out of trade school to work with depressed and schizophrenic people. Trying to educate emergency staff is just wasteful spending! Giving tax exempts to renovations is much more important. Jesus, another one! So you think for one social field worker, you need one manager, one instructor, one office clerk, one service clerk, and one project manager? At least our army of nurses and doctors is run with pretty light management and they seem to be educated and instructed by the senior staff and, you know, the educational services. I don't know where you got the idea from that I'm saying nurses should be sent to work from trade school. How common it is for internal employees of the social services to train people from other professions to theirs, anyway? I handily agree I don't know. All the social workers I know went there through applied sciences or something. Also I'll share the same secret I shared with Bore with you: If I didn't give a poo poo about the poor or wanted to cut social services off from everyone, I could simply say so. And nothing bad would befall me for saying it (apart from someone like you two calling me names on the internet, but why should I care - and people like Cerebral Bore will call people names anyway). edit: Your aunt works in social services? I'll trump you with an aunt, a fiancee, a mother and a grandmother from the social- and healthcare services! Hah! Ligur fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Aug 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
From my understanding, Finland already has a pretty big brain drain problem anyways. So what's the point 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2011 14:51
|
|