Two worlds: banksters; NZ child poverty

253 comments on “Two worlds: banksters; NZ child poverty ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Once was Tim 1

   15 June 2014 at 9:13 am

   “It probably doesn’t contain a lot of new information to many, but it does bring together a lot of information about the diminishing ethics of the bank that’s seen as THE one to imitate in the ruthless, profiteering world of finance and speculative capital.”

   It’s also useful in showing where the key players have ended up now and the influence they exert. On the basis of their record alone they should be excluded from positions in institutions such as the IMF/World Bank, ECB et al.

   Good seeing Marc Roche in action elswhere too – (such as Dateline London) – often, one of the few voices challenging the BS orthodoxy
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     15 June 2014 at 2:53 pm

     Good points Tim and also thanks to karol for finding this very important documentary. Fascinating how a media channel funded out of big money Dubai has the guts to present something like this which no US or UK station would do.
     • karol 1.1.1

       15 June 2014 at 5:01 pm

       Actually, I just saw a trailer for it when I switched on Al Jazeera yesterday morning. Set up the timer to record it.
   • Chooky 1.2

     16 June 2014 at 9:18 am

     didnt NZ Treasury, under the John Key NACT govt, get Goldman Sachs to do an evaluation of Kiwi Bank?

     …like getting a hungry wolf to evaluate the health of a plump Kiwi

     …can you have private shares in Goldman Sachs? ( who owns Goldman Sachs?)

     …must watch that doco …thanks Karol
2. Colonial Viper 2

   15 June 2014 at 10:49 am

   Not sure why its so hard for politicians to tackle child poverty in a fast, effective manner. We know that these children are out there and we know the kind of circumstances which brings about child poverty.

   So, we take these steps:

   1) Make the first $10,000 of income incl benefits, tax free.
   2) Institute a full employment policy for those 25 and under.
   3) Bring back the special benefit.
   4) Drop GST on all items under $100 back to 10%.
   • The Al1en 2.1

     15 June 2014 at 6:31 pm

     Wouldn’t have an issue with any of them.

     But I’d like to see the first $15,000 of income inc benefits, tax free for everyone earning under the median wage.
     And I’d like those under 21 not already working to be able to study/up-skill/re-train for free, and those that can’t, be given meaningful jobs by the state, paid going rates, opening up working for families in work tax credits.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       15 June 2014 at 7:18 pm

       Indeed.
   • Wreckingball 2.2

     16 June 2014 at 12:21 pm

     A full employment policy for under 25s. What a terrible idea.

     Where is the government going to find these jobs? Shall we just have all under unemployed under 25s sweeping streets or something? Government departments are already notoriously inefficient compared to private enterprises – why would we want more public service?

     Also, child poverty is the result of negligent parenting. I know a single father who is living on the benefit with 2 kids under the age of ten. He says that although they cannot afford all of life’s luxuries, they still are able to go to the movies every few months and get the kids soccer gear for the season. He buys his veggies at the local farmers market and also has a veggies garden going at his state house. He doesn’t smoke and has a few beers once is a while but doesn’t get sloshed. That is good parenting and something we should all aspire too.
3. Tracey 3

   15 June 2014 at 11:18 am

   The Children’s Commissioner says left-wing voters place child poverty third on their list of priorities for this election.”

   Karol

   Do you have the survey results to hand? Have we any recent surveys to show where people rank child poverty as opposed to where our politicians place it?
4. dimebag russell 4

   15 June 2014 at 11:24 am

   It is becoming increasingly obvious that this government does not give a shit about anything except feeding its own face.
   According to Wikipedia Goldman Sachs employees remuneration last year averaged out at $660,000. That is gross and outrageous but the the national mp’s have a sense of entitlement that is equally as egregious.
   Time to give this government the boot and restore some sense of rationality about living in NZ.
   The best primer on Goldman Sachs is by Suzanne Mcgee, “Chasing Goldman Sachs” which explains how they do it without the technical details.
5. blue leopard 5

   15 June 2014 at 11:36 am

   It was really good to hear Prof Boston and Dr Willis speak so clearly on the issue of poverty. I like the way it was stated that poverty is a policy choice. I am fed up with this idea that people choose the circumstances they are in; when 100% employment has been the focus of no government since the ’80s and assistance/approaches that allow for social mobility are being systematically removed for those raised in low/no income families.

   I liked Dr Willis’s message of how when it is explained to people and they become informed of how families are living when on the breadline (& under) that there is a strong response that this shouldn’t be occurring. This indicates that to get the type of public support for these issues that both Dr Willis and Prof Boston were appealing to the public for – information is required.

   I thought that the age cited by Dr Willis was pretty low, though – toddler age – should be higher than that. Children need more than financial support – they need emotional input. Sticking them in some daycare centre at that age doesn’t sound like best practice to me.
   • phillip ure 5.1

     15 June 2014 at 1:39 pm

     “..I thought that the age cited by Dr Willis was pretty low, though – toddler age – should be higher than that. Children need more than financial support – they need emotional input. Sticking them in some daycare centre at that age doesn’t sound like best practice to me…”

     ..+ 1..
   • Colonial Viper 5.2

     15 June 2014 at 2:56 pm

     I like the way it was stated that poverty is a policy choice.

     Yep. Like the way the Reserve Bank increases unemployment and depresses wages in order to keep inflation low.
   • Psycho Milt 5.3

     15 June 2014 at 4:02 pm

     Sticking them in some daycare centre at that age doesn’t sound like best practice to me.

     Oh, fuck off. For parents who actually work for a living, professional childcare is the norm, and it’s exactly those parents’ kids who aren’t off knifing the dairy owner before school. For a good number of kids living in poverty, having less emotional input from the violent cretins who produced them would help no end.
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.3.1

       15 June 2014 at 4:18 pm

       You have responded to: ‘Sticking them in some daycare centre at that age is bad‘

       Please note: ‘best practice’ in the sentence I wrote that you quoted.

       Think: How does that shift the meaning?

       I really I don’t think you can call it best practice to leave your children for the best part of a day on a regular basis. It might not harm, it might, depends on the carers- yet it is not ideal.

       Plus, I am sure there are plenty of cases where it is ‘good for kids’ living in wealthy households to have less time spent with their parents. This would be when the carers are more loving toward the child than the parents are. At least gives them a chance to develop good bonds and values with people.

       Or do you think that it is only poor people who fuck up their kids?

       Neither the cases that you raise nor this one I raise, though, is really a case of ideal circumstances for the child, is it.
       • Psycho Milt 5.3.1.1

         15 June 2014 at 5:51 pm

         Putting your kids in professional childcare certainly can be best practice – the people at the one my kids went to were certainly better-qualified to raise children than I was. Also: if you’re a sole parent, or you’ve no money and six kids, best practice wasn’t really top of your priority list in the first place.
         • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 5.3.1.1.1

           15 June 2014 at 6:14 pm

           I’m not terribly interested in the practices you personally choose with your kids – you really are talking about one person’s experiences, yours, and whilst you might consider yourself very important you are simply one of many, many people and it is one of a variety of practices that can be conducted with regard to childcare.

           I am suggesting that it would be excellent if a parent preferring to stay with their child was considered to be doing an important job especially for a child who only has one parent, because they are doing an important job . I would appreciate if those working in a government could work that out even if you can’t.
           • Psycho Milt 5.3.1.1.1.1

             15 June 2014 at 6:51 pm

             …whilst you might consider yourself very important you are simply one of many, many people…

             On the contrary, I consider myself so mundane and my experience so far from unique that I’m aware my experience was pretty much generic, which is why I mentioned it.

             I am suggesting that it would be excellent if a parent preferring to stay with their child was considered to be doing an important job especially for a child who only has one parent, because they are doing an important job .

             Yeah, that would be great, if kids with only one parent had one because of death or divorce, but that isn’t what we’ve got.
             • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

               15 June 2014 at 7:04 pm

               Seriously self absorbed of you to conclude that what you do is what ‘everyone’ does and that is the best practice. That is an argument seriously lacking in substance.

               Oh no, do I detect that ‘got pregnant for money’ tripe coming along?
               [Please no.]

               Is that what you did too?
               • Psycho Milt …

                 15 June 2014 at 8:12 pm

                 ‘Generic’ is not ‘universal.’ Also, sometimes there is more than one ‘best’ practice. Bottom line is there is nothing inherently wrong with having professionals look after your children while you work.

                 There may not be any getting pregnant for money, but there most definitely is not giving a shit about whether you get (someone) pregnant or not, there are reasons why shits are not given, and none of those reasons come under the heading of ‘best practice.’
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   15 June 2014 at 10:50 pm

                   Bottom line is there is nothing inherently wrong with having professionals look after your children while you work.

                   What do you mean “professionals”? Of course there is something wrong, breaking up the cohesion of the family unit and causing additional stresses on infants is never the ideal thing.

                   First the Right Wing say that too many parents of poor kids aren’t doing a good enough job, the next thing they’re saying that the parents can just wonder off as they please.

                   For gawds sakes get your story straight.
                   • McFlock …

                     15 June 2014 at 11:00 pm

                     What do you mean “professionals”?

                     he means that ECE teachers should be qualified 🙂
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     16 June 2014 at 6:21 am

                     ‘Professional’ isn’t exactly an obscure term, is it? If you’re struggling with the concept, it means someone with skills and experience who does a particular thing for a living, as opposed to an ‘amateur’.

                     First the Right Wing say…

                     … that putting children in day care is harmful and they need to be at home with their mothers. Sounds more like you than me, matey.
                   • blue leopard …

                     16 June 2014 at 10:44 am

                     If someone gets paid to do something you appear to assume they are better at it than someone who doesn’t do it for money. 🙄

                     Could you get any more thoughtless?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     16 June 2014 at 10:58 am

                     Parents of children don’t get paid to parent their kids. So maybe PM thinks that leaving it in the hands of childcare strangers i.e. paid professionals is an improvement on having the actual parents around.

                     This is of course the kind of enlightened thinking which led to the “Stolen Generation.”
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     16 June 2014 at 12:41 pm

                     Parents of children don’t get paid to parent their kids. So maybe PM thinks that leaving it in the hands of childcare strangers i.e. paid professionals is an improvement on having the actual parents around.

                     I’m not sure what logical process supposedly leads you to conclude that the statement “there is nothing inherently wrong with having professionals look after your children while you work” is synonymous with “paid professionals is an improvement on having the actual parents around,” but please don’t try and explain it, I’d probably just end up banging my head on the desk.
                 • blue leopard …

                   16 June 2014 at 12:15 am

                   @ Psycho Milt,
                   The thing is, in the interviews that this thread’s article referred to, both people interviewed were speaking how important it is to have children catered for in the first years of life – that all number of issues arise when this isn’t addressed. One of those people interviewed mentioned 3yrs being old enough – I disagree – that was what I commented on (and what you objected to).

                   Now the conversation has got highly convoluted.

                   You may take a judgemental approach and decide that kids who happen to be born unplanned, or to people who don’t have jobs don’t deserve to have the attention and financial backing that they require to become well-adjusted adults – however this judgmentalism actually bypasses the entire issue. “Oh well their parents got pregnant by mistake and haven’t stayed together meh, they shouldn’t have done that so seeing as one of their parents didn’t die and they weren’t married (sacre bleu!) so they couldn’t get a divorce,and nevermind if the sole care giver actually wants to be an active parent – too bloody bad, they can go to work and leave the kid in an institution for the day.”

                   Sorry, this doesn’t cut it for me.

                   I think that if the parent wants to be an active parent, this needs to be considered the priority and 5 years should be considered the minimum age for requiring any other arrangement – at this age the child can go to school and the parent can get work that fits in with that – prior to that time, and particularly because wages are low (which endangers leaving the parent stressed and absent even when in the child’s company)- I really do think that the priority should be on the child’s needs – and how the parent wishes to meet those needs. As the two people being interviewed stressed – there is a lot of advantage for the entire society when this role is taken seriously and supported.

                   I don’t think just because ‘Psycho Milt’ and the circles ‘Psycho Milt’ engages with ‘all do it’ is a good enough reason to consider that other parents with different values should be forced into putting their children into daycare when their child turns 3. That sounds incredibly young, to me, to be told they must be taken care of by others.

                   (+1 CV, except I am of the understanding that PM is not right-wing)
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     16 June 2014 at 6:52 am

                     I don’t think just because ‘Psycho Milt’ and the circles ‘Psycho Milt’ engages with ‘all do it’ is a good enough reason to consider that other parents with different values should be forced into putting their children into daycare when their child turns 3.

                     3? Try x months. If you’re a parent who works for a living, that’s what you’re looking at.

                     I take a very judgmental approach to the circumstances under which people create children, yes. That’s because people’s lives are involved, and in some cases the reckless, negligent fucking up thereof. You seem to be capable of recognising how contemptible it is to fuck up people’s lives when the perp is a bankster, but lose all capacity for discernment if the perp’s drawing a benefit. That’s a shame, but I don’t suffer the same incapacity. Also: accidents happen and we have to cover people for them, but if the same ‘accident’ is happening to you over and over again, the rest of us are going to reach conclusions about you.

                     I think that if the parent wants to be an active parent, this needs to be considered the priority and 5 years should be considered the minimum age for requiring any other arrangement…

                     Yes, that would make a lot of sense – in a situation that didn’t involve large numbers of people starting out as sole parents and effectively treating it as a career. However, our situation does involve large numbers of people starting out as sole parents and effectively treating it as a career, we have strong evidence that this type of ‘family’ is high risk for any kind of bad outcome you want to name, and making it more attractive will likely encourage more participants. Wills et al say “Forget that and think of the children, they’re what matters.” I say I am thinking of the children and this is patently a shit way to create and raise them, so at the same time we improve things for the existing kids in these circumstances we need to discourage production of them in these circumstances or we’re only going to make things worse. Wills and Boston are clever blokes, they’re capable of understanding things with more than one variable, and they really should be able to grasp this concept. Ordinary voters certainly do, and that’s why politicians aren’t rushing to implement Wills, CPAG etc’s suggestions.
                   • karol …

                     16 June 2014 at 8:34 am

                     However, our situation does involve large numbers of people starting out as sole parents and effectively treating it as a career,

                     Citation?
                   • blue leopard …

                     16 June 2014 at 10:31 am

                     @ Psycho Milt.

                     Yes, like Karol I would require links for the sweeping generalizations that you make, including your assertion: “You seem to be capable of recognising how contemptible it is to fuck up people’s lives when the perp is a bankster, but lose all capacity for discernment if the perp’s drawing a benefit”

                     That is all in your own mind Psycho Milt. How about you show a bit of respect? It is a bit boring having a discussion with someone when they are incapable of comprehending the argument I am putting across. I suggest that it is yourself without the discernment to see that all socio-economic groups are capable of neglect or abuse of their children. There will be plenty of children in very wealthy homes too that have been neglected because, for example, careers were prioritized. (I am highly suspicious that a lot of the corrupt behaviour occurring amongst the elite of the Western world arises out of just this type of background.)

                     You appear to have missed the entire point of the discussion. Any ‘bad statistic’ is what Boston and Willis were addressing – and this isn’t solely about those raising children who don’t have jobs – it is about those raising children who have jobs yet are without enough income to be able to spend time with their children in the important formative years. There are plenty of workers in these types of circumstances – what do you think Labours WFF and their new policy ‘Best Start’ is about?

                     Why are you making this about beneficiaries vs workers? Are you a sucker for wedge politics, or simply a driver of such? You appear to have gotten confused by your strong ideas re welfare recipients causing the problem – it is an issue of poverty – and in order to argue your points you are citing ‘workers’ who have to go back to work within x months as a reason for why parents should not be supported to stay at home with their children longer than they are. If ‘the people’ you cite going back to work are choosing to do this because their priority is keeping up with the Jones’ – that is their choice – I question that choice, because I think the child’s needs should be uppermost, however if ‘the people’ you cite are going back to work due to not being able to afford to do otherwise – this is just the type of issue that I understand Willis and Boston to be speaking about.

                     What should the priority in society be in relation to children? Raising them so that their needs are met – or not? Isn’t it better that people who have children are supported to provide the children with a good foundation? Or does society simply place money first in every fork in the road and prioritise the profit-makers endless wish for more?

                     With reference to those on welfare. Those with partners and children get payed a whole lot less than anyone else, their income gets severely penalized when they have jobs due to calculating the amounts earned combined leading to the same welfare reduction rates as though they were one person – and due to this are fairly well forced to survive on one income. This places a lot of pressure on relationships and no doubt leads to a lot of break-ups. No doubt at all.

                     Which leads us nicely to the subject of those with children and no partner. Since the time that the political agenda of governments stopped prioritizing full employment, consecutive governments have consistently targeted pressurizing this group of people to get jobs – whether there are jobs available or not. I say, apart from working with them to devise a game-plan for once their children get to school age, leave them alone if being full-time parents is what they wish to be. This is an important service to their children and society after all. While focusing on those with children, those without children are left with far less support and encouragement – and what happens if they want children? Basically they can’t have them. Or they have them and the cycle of pressuring and pressurized solo parents starts up again. It is a shame when individuals have limited perspectives on these issues, however it is a greater shame that governments have systematically shown the same limited and limiting perspectives. It is, therefore, heartening to hear speakers who are pointing to the importance of the role of parent-hood and taking a ‘can do’ attitude toward this issue.

                     Noone wants to be stuck on welfare – if anyone is choosing this course for their life -if – the most constructive line of reasoning would have to be why would they do that?

                     Addressing the answer to that question would be far more effective than basing approaches on uninformed/misinformed knee-jerk reactions of what looks like, from where I stand, misguided envy.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     16 June 2014 at 12:29 pm

                     Citation?

                     Every time this is discussed I get asked to go off and fetch the figures, and I’m sick of it. Can’t be arsed doing it yet again. Last time I looked there were upwards of 20% of newborns being raised on benefits in the year of their birth, and a good 40% for Maori. There was also a ridiculous proportion of sole parents who’d spent much of the last decade on benefits. CPAG prefers to deal in averages because they helpfully disguise the long-term-waster problem, but if you look beyond the averages it becomes quite clear.

                     I suggest that it is yourself without the discernment to see that all socio-economic groups are capable of neglect or abuse of their children.

                     Er, no. Of course all socio-economic groups are capable of neglect or abuse of their children, and only an idiot would suggest otherwise. At issue is whether there are ‘family’ (using the term extremely loosely) arrangements that are more likely to result in negative outcomes and which should therefore not be encouraged, and the answer is yes there are such arrangements and no we should not be encouraging them.

                     Why are you making this about beneficiaries vs workers?

                     Because it’s a significant factor. If we pretend there’s no difference between children being raised on benefits and children being raised in working families, no amount of money we throw at the problem will help in the long term. Wills, CPAG et al are determined to maintain that pretence, which means any sensible government will be equally determined to bin their suggestions. Which is why neither National nor Labour is willing to run with this.
                   • karol …

                     16 June 2014 at 1:08 pm

                     So, PM you want to ignore the fluctuating reality of numbers counted aslong term unemployed – which is actually lower than that of the OEDC average.

                     And you want to ignore the fact that many children in poverty have parents who are the working poor – either underemployed or on low wages?

                     And you want to ignore the fact that parents tend to have their subsequent children in the five – ten years after they have their first child – the reality of people of child bearing age,

                     And, the stats for parents on benefits having subsequent children are here.

                     The biggest number of subsequent children are born to couples on SB, not UB, and to those on DPB.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     16 June 2014 at 1:51 pm

                     So, PM you want to ignore the fluctuating reality of numbers counted aslong term unemployed – which is actually lower than that of the OEDC average.

                     Seems reasonable to ignore it. During the last Labour government when unemployment plummeted, DPB numbers dipped only slightly – ie only a few people on the DPB were on it due to poor employment opportunities.

                     And you want to ignore the fact that many children in poverty have parents who are the working poor – either underemployed or on low wages?

                     No, I just don’t see it as relevant to the particular subject under discussion. First, the working poor have a problem of wages and working conditions, not of the social welfare system (which is what Wills and Boston are talking about. If they could put in a plug for the government’s ability to ensure higher wages and better working conditions that would be great, but it’s not really the subject of this thread). Second, children living in a family with working parents, however poor, are not in as high-risk a situation as children being raised on benefits. Some recent study had being raised on a benefit long-term putting you 13x more at risk of neglect and abuse.

                     And you want to ignore the fact that parents tend to have their subsequent children in the five – ten years after they have their first child – the reality of people of child bearing age

                     Far from ignoring it, I’d say it’s exactly the problem – we have a shitload of people looking to the social welfare system, rather than a life partner of some description, to help them through their child-raising years. That benefit was put there to help people in difficulties, not to be a default spouse-substitute.

                     The biggest number of subsequent children are born to couples on SB, not UB, and to those on DPB.

                     More accurately: the number of subsequent children born to couples on SB and UB is a tiny fraction of the number born to sole parents on the DPB.

                     Further, from the same report:

                     “Clients who had a subsequent child in the previous year were more likely to …

                     have no record of being employed pre, post or during spells on benefit (56% of the total).”

                     There’s your “people treating it as a career,” right there.
                   • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                     16 June 2014 at 4:55 pm

                     @ Psycho Milt

                     It is actually difficult to know where to start in addressing the multitude of erroneous conclusions you are drawing.

                     Perhaps it is suffice to say that 0.0014% of New Zealanders of the working-age population having ‘subsequent children’ while on the DPB doesn’t seem like the type of figure that should obviate addressing poverty.

                     Nor should fabrications as to the motives and agenda of those on welfare. This type of rubbish needs to start being seen for what it is – the rantings of strange ranting-prone types.

                     Anger and resentment toward those in worse circumstances than oneself add nothing good to this issue, in fact I am absolutely confident 100% that such attitudes are very much part of the problem.
           • BM 5.3.1.1.1.2

             15 June 2014 at 6:57 pm

             In days long gone and especially in tribal situations it was the norm for the men to go out hunting and the women to work in the fields while the elderly looked after the children.

             I see little difference between that and modern child care.
             • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

               15 June 2014 at 7:10 pm

               go to the back of the class, idiot.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               15 June 2014 at 8:32 pm

               New Women of the Ice Age

               Such findings, agree Soffer and Adovasio, reveal just how shaky the most widely accepted reconstructions of Upper Paleolithic life are. These terribly stilted interpretations, says Adovasio, with men hunting big animals all the time and the poor females waiting at home for these guys to bring home the bacon—what crap.

               Reality proves the RWNJ wrong – again.
         • redfred 5.3.1.1.2

           16 June 2014 at 10:35 am

           My wife and I chose not to put our kids into a childcare, we have changed the parent at home role, I took 3 years off paid work so she could return to her profession. We made financial sacrifices to do so, but we didn’t see the point in having kids if we weren’t’ going to be the ones to raise them.

           We are happy with our decision in a perfect world I personally believe that it is the parents that should raise their kids. I’m not bagging anyone else decision, just the way we felt.
           • blue leopard 5.3.1.1.2.1

             16 June 2014 at 10:51 am

             That is really heartening to hear Redfred.

             When it comes to parenting it is easy to get judgmental about the choices made – I would have to say I agree with your approach – yet I can see that there are others who are not financially placed to make that choice and view that it would be preferable that people who want to make the type of decision you and your partner did were supported in doing just that.

             This issue fundamentally is about insufficient wages.
   • Mary 5.4

     15 June 2014 at 4:06 pm

     “I am fed up with this idea that people choose the circumstances they are in;”

     That’s why The Civilian Party’s policy of taxing the poor as an incentive not to be poor is so important.

     http://www.3news.co.nz/Interview-The-Civilian-Partys-Ben-Uffindell/tabid/1348/articleID/345607/Default.aspx
6. chris73 6

   15 June 2014 at 12:08 pm

   You could raise benefits as much as you like but it won’t change child poverty because there is no child poverty in NZ, theres children living in poverty sure but no child poverty itself

   We’re lucky in NZ in that whatever standard of living you aspire to you can achieve it, you want to be Bob Jones wealthy you can, you want to be John Key wealthy you can, you want to aspire to a nice, standard middle-class existence you can but also if you want to be poor you will be

   These families (there are rare exceptions granted) that are poor are poor because they choose to be poor, its the life they want to live

   Until you change the mindset of these people that are poor all the money in the world will not make a jot of difference
   • Tracey 6.1

     15 June 2014 at 12:19 pm

     And there you have it, direct from planet key, where fiction is the new fact.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

       15 June 2014 at 1:02 pm

       +1
     • Macro 6.1.2

       15 June 2014 at 1:44 pm

       chris73 = Brainwashed and stupid!

       It’s about time mate you went outside and had a look around, and stopped spending all your time on whalespew.

       #6 Nominated for “most stupid comment of the year award”
       • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1.2.1

         15 June 2014 at 2:35 pm

         I second that nomination Macro
       • redfred 6.1.2.2

         16 June 2014 at 10:37 am

         Gets my vote …. what a clueless idiot
   • blue leopard 6.2

     15 June 2014 at 12:21 pm

     While education is now no longer a guarantee for a job – please explain to me how a person can decide to go into $30,000+ worth of debt when they and possibly their parents have only ever earned less than that amount per annum?

     Combine this with the amount that the student allowance is – for over 24 year-olds it is $240 including housing costs, (where housing is averaging $100+ a week in the centres with Universities) for under 24 year-olds it is less (will go and look it up*) and I posit that it becomes an extremely difficult choice to make if one doesn’t have financial backing (i.e. help from parents or savings of ones’ own) or hasn’t experienced anything other than the lowest wages.

     It might seem like a no-brainer to you and to many who haven’t experienced these sort of circumstances to think ‘well I will be stuck for ever if I don’t do this, so I may as well try’ however it is not so simple to agree to this level of debt on the blind trust that one will get a well paid job on completing the study (this is no longer guaranteed) and that one will be able to pay the debt back.

     It is not easy to make decisions about tens of thousands of dollars when the type of budget you have been working with is in the low ten thousands per annum (the low 100s per week).

     Your basic assumption that it is ‘peoples’ choice to be poor’ is based on your inability to assess how different circumstances to yours can affect the ‘choices’ made.

     • it is $174 for a single 19 year-old not living at home – I am assuming accommodation benefit is not included in this – so add $40 (or slightly more if in Auckland). = $214 per week – leaving approx $114 for food, electricity etc after housing costs have been taken out
     • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1

       15 June 2014 at 1:11 pm

       Combine this with the amount that the student allowance is – for over 24 year-olds it is $240 including housing costs

       And if you don’t get the Student Allowance and need to take the living costs loan instead it’s $176/week plus a max of $40 per week for the accommodation supplement. This means that a student, who has more expenses, is going to be worse off than being on the Unemployment Benefit.

       To put that in context: WINZ understands, even if they won’t say so directly, that it’s impossible to do anything on the UB. They show this by, when they send you on one of their ‘courses’ (which inevitably don’t actually teach you anything but it makes some private profiteers richer), paying for the travel to and from the course.

       Basically, it’s a rational choice to stay on the UB than to go get educated. This really needs attention.
       • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.2.1.1

         15 June 2014 at 2:26 pm

         Basically, it’s a rational choice to stay on the UB than to go get educated.
         Actually, thats is a good point, except the reality is possibly sadder than that – there is no real choice and certainly no ‘rational’ choice available for people in this situation – just risky or riskier, hopeless or potentially more hopeless and working out which is which is highly debatable- simply a matter of guess-work – stabbing in the dark. (i.e. no hard and fast ‘correct’ or ‘rational’ answers to the available ‘choices’.)

         This really needs attention.
         +1000

         It also needs more people knowing about it so we get less of this head-in-the-clouds stuff (hmm perhaps ‘up-their-arses” might be more appropriate) like: ‘people have a choice’.
   • marty mars 6.3

     15 June 2014 at 12:57 pm

     How long have you and your mates been trying to change the mindset of poor people (through the stick) – yet somehow there are still poor people – why is that? Hint – maybe because your thesis is a made up pile of rubbish perchance? But don’t worry poor people are used to being blamed for being poor – it’s an old and well used lie.
     • phillip ure 6.3.1

       15 June 2014 at 1:42 pm

       “..it’s always the poor wot gets the blame..”
   • Draco T Bastard 6.4

     15 June 2014 at 1:01 pm

     We’re lucky in NZ in that whatever standard of living you aspire to you can achieve it,

     No you can’t as not everyone can be rich. In fact the majority must be poor for there to be a few rich.
     • Harriet 6.4.1

       15 June 2014 at 2:22 pm

       Hardly.

       One can invest as much as they like overseas and then repatriate the profits. It’s achievable.
       • Draco T Bastard 6.4.1.1

         15 June 2014 at 3:13 pm

         That just requires that the majority overseas also has to be poor.
       • Tracey 6.4.1.2

         15 June 2014 at 4:22 pm

         invest what overseas
   • Delia 6.5

     15 June 2014 at 1:05 pm

     You should join with the Civilian Party, you have a real talent for satire.
     • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.5.1

       15 June 2014 at 2:28 pm

       lol good call & funny!
   • McFlock 6.6

     15 June 2014 at 4:48 pm

     We’re lucky in NZ in that whatever standard of living you aspire to you can achieve it, you want to be Bob Jones wealthy you can,

     cf:

     These families (there are rare exceptions granted) that are poor are poor because they choose to be poor

     So the “rare exceptions” do not “choose to be poor”.

     You on a bad day seem to be dumber than fisi on a good day #rateyourtoryliar
   • Macro 6.7

     15 June 2014 at 8:50 pm

     chris – Maggie said it so much better!

     “And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour…”

     – Margaret Thatcher, Former UK Prime Minister –

     But then there is another way of looking at it. One that actually works.

     “Michael Joseph Savage (1872-1940), or “Mickey” as he affectionately became known, was one of the country’s best loved Prime Minister’s. For two generations he spearheaded the social security structure of New Zealand, being a leading spokesman for increased pensions and a totally free health system.

     He was a leading figure in the New Zealand Labour Party following its formation in 1916, and he succeeded Harry Holland as leader, following the latter’s death in 1933. In 1935 Savage became New Zealand’s first Labour Prime Minister, when Labour was swept into power at the tail end of the Depression. Immediately a Christmas bonus was paid to the unemployed and poor, and a programme of state housing commenced. In 1938 he began drawing up plans for his Social Security system, calling it “applied Christianity”. This provided for a universal free health system and an old-age pension of 30 shillings a week for men and women at age 60, with a general payment at the age of 65.”

     And yes that is what it is chris when we look after others who, for whatever reason, cannot care for themselves – It’s called “applied Christianity”.
   • Puddleglum 6.8

     15 June 2014 at 10:13 pm

     Here’s a graph showing changes in people’s ‘choices’ over time.

     Oddly, there was a contagion of choices to be poor that began in the mid-1980s. Mass hysteria, presumably, or everyone getting in on the latest poverty fad … or something.
     • McFlock 6.8.1

       15 June 2014 at 10:20 pm

       stupid kids, choosing to be poor… /sarc
       • minarch 6.8.1.1

         16 June 2014 at 3:05 pm

         its the new black dont you know !
   • Tracey 6.9

     16 June 2014 at 11:16 am

     more myth regurgitation disproved

     We tend to think that simply giving people money makes them lazy. Yet a wealth of scientific research proves the contrary: free money helps. It is time for a radical reform of the welfare state.

     https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

     There was a thread about this a few months ago. You may even have contributed. Yet, despite the evidence you are back peddling your myths.
7. dimebag russell 7

   15 June 2014 at 12:11 pm

   sorry chris but you seem to be impoverished in the mental department.
8. aerobubble 8

   15 June 2014 at 1:01 pm

   A farmer of vines, berries, apples, or whatever, will seasonally cut back their plants to promote new growth. I been thinking that our linear tax system is the problem. Instead of raising revenue uniformly, especially taxing the poorest unnecessarily, we should prune the wealthiest of large parts of their capital to keep them vital and vigorous. I mean this is the idea that is used to lower their taxes, that the wealthiest need lower taxes to produce growth. But as we’ve seen, it does not produce growth, or produces the wrong types of growth (i.e. sprawl, carbon intense products and lifestyles, etc). Anyway that my two cents.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     15 June 2014 at 1:12 pm

     Taxing the rich is what is needed.
     • Colonial Viper 8.1.1

       15 June 2014 at 2:57 pm

       And in particular, returning to taxing capital, not income.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1

         15 June 2014 at 3:20 pm

         If we do it correctly people won’t be able to afford to own a lot of capital which would stop the never ending accumulation that we have now.
         • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1.1

           15 June 2014 at 3:35 pm

           And we could then focus on the true capital of society – its people, environment and physical resources, not the financialised capital as found on electronic balance sheets.
           • Tracey 8.1.1.1.1.1

             15 June 2014 at 4:24 pm

             people remunerated on merit. stop it
   • phillip ure 8.2

     15 June 2014 at 1:47 pm

     “.., we should prune the wealthiest of large parts of their capital to keep them vital and vigorous..”

     especially because they are so talented..they will make it all back in a flash..anyway..

     ..put them on the dole..and in 12 months they’ll be back driving a merc..

     ..they wont ‘want to be there’..

     (unlike those feckless-poor chris 73 knows so much about..)

     ..that’s ‘cos you can’t keep a ‘good person’ down…

     ..and being rich..it is because they are ‘good people’..

     ..(especially if their wealth punctuates their church-going..the confirmation-circle..)

     ..so they’ll get back from rags back to riches faster than you can say:..

     ‘but..!..but..!..i inherited it..!..’
     • aerobubble 8.2.1

       15 June 2014 at 1:59 pm

       But its the idea that having won life’s lottery that somehow they not only meant to but actively through shear will power did so without the aid of anyone or any society. The sad fact is our system selects some to win, then selects them to maintain their wealth without much effort, and finally to top it of maintains the myth that special people (the rich) walk amongst us as our betters.

       Nobody begrudges people who work hard some recompense, but equally, nobody should expect that recompense to remain inviable and the disparity to endue for all time, thereafter.

       Churn is essential to capitalism. So the mass accumulation of wealth by so few is a threat to capitalism, and those individuals are NOT capitalists. Capitalist are those who make money, not those who sit on a huge pile of it. So tax cut on the richest is a capitalist policy, and demanding lower taxes for the richest is socialism for the wealth at the expense of capitalism.
       • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1

         15 June 2014 at 3:34 pm

         So the mass accumulation of wealth by so few is a threat to capitalism, and those individuals are NOT capitalists.

         No, they actually are capitalists.

         Capitalist are those who make money, not those who sit on a huge pile of it.

         They would be entrepreneurs.
9. aerobubble 9

   15 June 2014 at 1:48 pm

   Yes. But the problem is rich people know why they got rich. Knowing oneself isn’t that easy.

   The rich think by getting rich they were their own masters, and so can slip into the notion that they know what would continue to get them rich is what is required, of course its not, since they are now rich and weren’t before.

   But we don’t need rich people, we need the right type of growth, and the rich aren’t producing it.

   Growth != profit, Profits != more profits.

   The rich don’t know how they did it (in the same way a bumper crop comes from good farming, and most farmers have different priorities that the platnns they grow).

   Rich people are not super heros, they are just good growers, and assuming they will always be, or knew they would be… …anyway, it might not actually mean more taxing of the richest even if taxes are higher on the richest. Remember trickle down, how in fact growth was created by middle eastern oil, not by tax cuts, things don’t follow as the neo-cons lies make out.

   Surely tax rises means less revenue, but that’s not a bad thing if society needs less revenue, because its more balanced and equitable. i.e. lower taxes for the rich produced more revenue necessary to keep the population sedated at the higher levels of inequality. So it follows that governments won’t need to pay off populations to maintain a large super rich class.
10. geoff 10

    15 June 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Bill Moyers interviews nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman about inequality, Piketty, the very rich and redistribution.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      15 June 2014 at 3:11 pm

      Krugman is good but he also doesn’t understand the age of energy decline that the modern economy is now trapped in with no way out.
11. Blue 11

    15 June 2014 at 1:58 pm

    The Children’s Commissioner says left-wing voters place child poverty third on their list of priorities for this election. It’s a couple of places lower for right-wingers, but still important.

    I’ll believe that when I see it. NZ voters don’t give a stuff about child poverty. As long as it’s not happening to them or their families they’re fine with it happening to nebulous ‘others’ who make ‘bad choices’ and can be safely sneered at from a distance. If we’re waiting for a grassroots rebellion against child poverty I would recommend that no one hold their breath in the meantime.
12. joe90 12

    15 June 2014 at 2:55 pm

    You couldn’t make this shit up.

    The CEO of Goldman Sachs thinks the economy isn’t doing enough to benefit those at the lowest end of the income spectrum. Lloyd Blankfein, in an interview with CBS, said that income inequality is “destabilizing” and “responsible for the divisions in the country.” Calling it a “very big issue … that has to be dealt with,” Blankfein said that whether or not the economy grows faster, “too much of the GDP over the last generation has gone to too few of the people.”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewzeitlin/goldman-sachs-ceo-income-inequality-is-a-very-destabilizing
    • Colonial Viper 12.1

      15 June 2014 at 3:10 pm

      The prick’s havin’ a laugh. He got millions of USD in bonuses as his bank profited off a wave of pension fund devaluations and home foreclosures that they had helped to set up.
      • blue leopard 12.1.1

        15 June 2014 at 3:18 pm

        Another option is that Goldman Sachs might be feeling the need for a bit of positive marketing for ‘their brand’ – I’m unsure that mere lip-service is enough however….now they simply seem to have added ‘hypocritical’ to the list of words associated with their company….
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          15 June 2014 at 3:26 pm

          Lloyd Blankfein believes that he and his investment bank Goldman Sachs is doing “God’s work.”

          He said that during the height of the GFC.

          That level of absolute self delusion says it all.

          http://www.businessinsider.com.au/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11
          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.1

            15 June 2014 at 3:40 pm

            Lloyd Blankfein believes that he and his investment bank Goldman Sachs is doing “God’s work.”

            Did anybody ask which god?
            • joe90 12.1.1.1.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 3:54 pm

              This one.

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.1.1.1.2

            15 June 2014 at 4:04 pm

            Which perfectly proves that wealth disparity is extremely bad for those receiving too much money aswell as for those receiving not enough to live on (or even less).

            It is too easy to develop delusions of grandeur when one receives so much more than everyone else.

            These people need taxing for their own good. 😉
            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.2.1

              15 June 2014 at 4:07 pm

              Passing through the eye of a needle and all that
          • Poission 12.1.1.1.3

            15 June 2014 at 5:11 pm

            Lloyd Blankfein believes that he and his investment bank Goldman Sachs is doing “God’s work.”

            The failure of Goldman’s Sach financial models was greater then an act of god,even the CFO did not understand the probability (read risk)

            One of the more memorable moments of last summer’s credit crunch came when the
            CFO of Goldman Sachs, David Viniar, announced in August that Goldman’s flagship
            GEO hedge fund had lost 27% of its value since the start of the year. As Mr. Viniar
            explained, “We were seeing things that were 25-standard deviation moves, several
            days in a row.”

            One commentator wryly noted:

            That Viniar. What a comic. According to Goldman’s mathematical models,
            August, Year of Our Lord 2007, was a very special month. Things were
            happening that were only supposed to happen once in every 100,000 years.
            Either that … or Goldman’s models were wrong (Bonner, 2007b).

            The 25 standard deviation events are significantly greater then 1/100000

            It is pretty clear by now that a 25-sigma event is much, much, much less likely than is
            suggested by an expected occurrence every 100,000 years. In fact, if we take the true
            figure (1.309e+135) and divide it by 100,000 we get a figure equal to 1.309e+130,
            and this tells us that the estimate of 100,000 is out by 130 decimal points: it is not
            even close to within 100 decimal points. We suspect, on the other hand, that the
            estimate of a 25-sigma event being on a par with Hell freezing over is probably about
            right

            http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1103/1103.5672.pdf
            • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1.3.1

              15 June 2014 at 6:05 pm

              Nassim Taleb, author of “Black Swan” nails it with his concept of “fat tails” of risk, rare events, and the probability differences between “Mediocre-stan” and “Extremi-stan”

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6sX5MSdLag
13. fisiani 13

    15 June 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Two world views
    Give them a fish (Green/Labour) or give them a fishing rod (National)
    Give them a handout or give them a handup.
    Give them crocodile tears or give them a job
    Make them dependent or make them independent
    Give them a hovel or give them a warm dry home
    Give them grievance or give them hope
    Give them the past or give them a brighter future

    That’s why more and more people are changing to National as the means to solve poverty.
    • chris73 13.1

      15 June 2014 at 4:18 pm

      Its true, the left want to see people stay in low-skilled and low jobs so that they’ll always have a voter base

      I do wish though it was an easy as the left think it is: raise taxes to give more to the unemployed and all the problems in NZ are solved
      • Tracey 13.1.1

        15 June 2014 at 4:28 pm

        planet key, bringing you more propaganda than you can regurgitate. see you in hawaii for the christmas party.
        • chris73 13.1.1.1

          15 June 2014 at 4:40 pm

          Whenever some daily newspaper has a “poor me” story (helped out by the labour or Greens party of course) theres a few things in the accompanying photos I can always count on seeing and that is:

          1. they have newer furniture then I have (on finance no doubt)
          2. More personal electronics then I have (again on finance)
          3. Sky TV
          4. Alcohol
          5. Smoking
          6. More kids then they can afford
          7. More modern car then mine (again on finance)

          They’ve chosen to live most of their lives in debt, wasting their money on things that arn’t important which means they don’t have the money for things that are like food and clothing for thier kids

          They for the most part choose to live like that, if they chose a different way they wouldn’t be so dependent on the state
          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.1.1.1

            15 June 2014 at 5:11 pm

            Why do you believe tell so many lies?

            Low IQ? Gutter ethics? Gang connections?

            Whatever, your hate speech is a stain on this nation.
            • chris73 13.1.1.1.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 5:15 pm

              Its right there in the photos, however I’ve always wondered if the newspapers themselves frame it in such a way as to be a negative, even though its the Labour and Greens shopping the stories
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                15 June 2014 at 5:20 pm

                What, you’re so twisted by hatred it shows in photos? Hardly surprising, although the self-awareness is; well done for that at least.
              • karol …

                15 June 2014 at 5:22 pm

                Citations, please.

                Edit: Had a quick look online. I only found this.
                • One Anonymous Bloke …

                  15 June 2014 at 5:30 pm

                  Karol, there’s plenty of extant research that demonstrates that the right wing mind is closed to logical arguments. Comparatively low intelligence (Hodson & Busseri 2012) and distended amygdalae (Kanai et al 2011) render them useless.

                  Successful approaches usually involve emotional appeals.
                  • chris73 …

                    15 June 2014 at 5:45 pm

                    See I’d link them but they involve whaleoil so I’m really not going to waste my time
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      15 June 2014 at 5:54 pm

                      You already did, when you chose to eat trash.
                    • Tracey …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:06 pm

                      You could link directly to whaleoils sources cos a post at whaleoil is not actually proof of anything by virtue of the opinion being posted there.

                      Your mind is so cluttered by myths that feed your misdirected bitterness, its scarey.
                    • karol …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

                      So, you only read newspapers as reported on WO’s site?
              • Tracey …

                15 June 2014 at 6:04 pm

                the photo tells you the furniture is indebted and the electronics too?
          • phillip ure 13.1.1.1.2

            15 June 2014 at 5:27 pm

            @ c 73..

            ..shouldn’t yr many ‘then’s be ‘than’s’..?

            ..do you spell as you speak..?

            ..are you orstraylian..?
            • chris73 13.1.1.1.2.1

              15 June 2014 at 5:50 pm

              Quite possibly, my spelling and comprehension can be a bit iffy but since I’m not an English teacher I’m not going to worry about it.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                15 June 2014 at 6:11 pm

                That’s more a consequence of sloppiness and low intelligence than it is of not being an English teacher.
                • infused …

                  16 June 2014 at 1:24 am

                  Ah yes OAK. Your’e all about intelligence.
      • Colonial Viper 13.1.2

        15 June 2014 at 4:45 pm

        chris73 you really are stupid to believe the nonsense you have been fed.

        44% of all recent university graduates in the USA are unemployed. The number climbs to clear over 50% of recent grads when you take into account the people who have had to accept low pay low skill jobs which their degree is not suited for.

        We are creating an economy which destroys young people, provides no places for them to utilise their training and saddles them with student debt and little chance of paying it back.

        I’m afraid that your stupid right wing cliches hides the real suffering and structural inequality the oligarchic ruling class is creating.
        • chris73 13.1.2.1

          15 June 2014 at 4:59 pm

          I’m sorry I thought we were in NZ not the USA, however leaving aside what the USA is or isn’t doing my point still stands and a degree is not the only way to success

          For example I don’t have a degree, I dropped out of Uni to work and in the next 6-12 months I’ll have a brand new home in Rolleston, I’ll have brought myself a (admittedly late model not brand new) newer car to replace my wifes car and have 2 possibly 3 rentals in Timaru and my wife and I have never made more then 43 grand each in a year ever

          I want a good life style and I want to retire between 60-65 and not have to worry about the pension and public health and I’ll get there because of the sacrifices my wife and I have made now

          The choices we’ve made are what will give us the lifestyle we want, it may have taken us longer to get it then originally planned but not by much but we’re getting it none the less

          Poor people choose to be poor because of the choices they make

          PS I’m guessing that even in the next couple of years I’ll still not be doing as well as others on here but thats ok because what someone makes is of no concern to what I make, their success doesn’t stop me from being successful and my success doesn’t stop anyone else and so on
          • Colonial Viper 13.1.2.1.1

            15 June 2014 at 5:16 pm

            Poor people choose to be poor because of the choices they make

            Why do you insist on lying like this?

            You talk about buying a new house in Rolleston. Did all the people whose homes were destroyed in the Christchurch earthquakes, lost their jobs because their offices and factories were shutdown, therefore couldn’t service their mortgages so lost their homes too, make “poor choices”? In some cases people still owe hundreds of thousands of dollars on a house which no longer exists.

            These people all live within 30km of your new home. You really are a gutless self serving wretch.

            You talk about all the good fortune you have had – and then denigrate everyone else who hasn’t made it just to make yourself look and sound smart and wise.

            What’s that about? What an arsehole.
            • chris73 13.1.2.1.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 5:24 pm

              Thats the thing its not good fortune which suggests luck its deliberate choices I made to reach the position I’m in because not all of us are lucky enough to be born into or marry into wealth

              Is that really the mindset of the left though? Theres no such thing as choice its all luck…You think I tripped over and whoops a daisy found myself in a much stronger position then I am now?

              No its because we barely drink, we don’t smoke, we don’t have sky, we put on hold the things we wanted to concentrate on the things we needed

              Its all about the choices we make and the only thing I regret is that I didn’t realise this much earlier

              I’ll repeat that, its about choices, in NZ its your choice as to how you live

              and apparently I’m stupid so if I can do it anyone can…
              • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                15 June 2014 at 5:34 pm

                @ Chris73,
                I asked you a question 5 hours ago in relation to a strikingly similar line of ‘reasoning’ you were expressing 5.5 hours ago.
                How come you didn’t answer it?
                What is with all the repetition?
                Do you think that people will start agreeing with you the more times they read it?
                Or is it that you only have one thought on the matter, and so are attempting to make up for your dearth of ideas by saying the same thing numerous times?
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 5:37 pm

                  I didn’t answer it because I went out, ask it again I’ll answer it
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    15 June 2014 at 5:38 pm

                    You little self righteous lying weasel.

                    Now answer the example of all those people whose lives and finances have been ruined by the earthquake.

                    Where was their “choice” in the matter?
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:00 pm

                      Strike a nerve about the comment about marrying into a rich family did I? Don’t worry about it, many people have made their fortunes by drilling an oil well, so to speak in fact if I’d have the choice I’d have done the same thing but alas it wasn’t to be

                      I feel for them and I certainly met a lot of them while I was assisting in the clean up but since they live in NZ they have plenty of support

                      So yeah its tough, not denying that but plenty of people have come through being financially ruined to make a new start as long as they avail themselves of the help thats out there
                    • phillip ure …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:55 pm

                      “..in fact if I’d have the choice I’d have done the same thing but alas it wasn’t to be..”

                      i am sure those words must cheer the woman/wife you ended up with..eh..?
                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                    15 June 2014 at 5:49 pm

                    It might come as a surprise to you chris73, so I do hope you are sitting down when you read this next bit.

                    I suggest you read it very slowly.

                    You can ‘scroll up‘ and read comments made while you are away. Amazing aye?

                    This ‘scrolling up’ can be done a number of ways; by using the arrow key, the page up key or even rolling the wheel on the mouse if you have one those (- of course there are apple mouses which you can give a light swipe of to achieve the same thing….but I won’t mention that, it might confuse you and you might not have followed my suggestion to sit down earlier… I wouldn’t want you falling over too many times in one day)

                    Therefore I suggest that you try this and ‘scroll-up’ and you will find my questions is at 6.2 (that is the number at the upper right corner of the comment).
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 5:52 pm

                      Most of the time I simply can’t be bothered going through back posts so I figure if its a question someone really wants answering they’ll ask it again, if not…
                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:24 pm

                      So what? Because you have a lazy character you lazily impute that on all those without jobs? Is that what this is all about?

                      How does someone afford to study when what they receive is $114 after housing costs have been taken out and they don’t have some sort of financial backing?
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:30 pm

                      “How does someone afford to study when what they receive is $114 after housing costs have been taken out and they don’t have some sort of financial backing?”

                      • Do like most everyone else does (including myself at one point) and get a part-time job
                      • Distance education is also a go, I believe Victoria University is set up pretty well for DE, that may you can work and study

                      Plenty of people manage it so don’t tell me it can’t be done
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:39 pm

                      @Chris73 Hey, moran, your political model relies on the fact that some don’t “manage it”, and then you moranically affect airs over them.

                      You’re transparent, so incompetent you’re not even wrong.
                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:49 pm

                      @C73,
                      What if you are not blessed with the ability to work and study and still pass? What if you need to study in order to get good marks?
                      Why would a system base their level of assistance on those with top-level ability or from wealthy backgrounds? Doesn’t this remove choices from, limit options, those without such additional advantages?

                      Perhaps your addle-brained comments are really about not wanting the playing field evened out a bit?

                      p.s I think you will find that the paper requirement for fulltime study has gone up since you were in study – and so has the workload per paper. But, yeah, I guess the has-beens who are creating these rules are as unaware of these changes as you are.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                15 June 2014 at 5:38 pm

                It looks like stupidity then. However, if we drill down into stupidity we usually find environmental and/or physiological factors at play.

                The real question is whether the low IQ and distorted brain stricture will eventually be cured by natural selection, or will we always have to carry this wingnut albatross?
            • infused 13.1.2.1.1.2

              16 June 2014 at 1:27 am

              Do you research on the job market then, duh.

              I was doing comp sci in 2001, and there were no jobs. So guess what, I dropped out. Holy shit, how hard was that?

              Bullshit excuse.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                16 June 2014 at 11:45 am

                😆

                Also do your research on employers in general and figure out whether they prefer to employ covetous quitters or not.
          • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1.2.1.2

            15 June 2014 at 5:18 pm

            Poverty is a choice. Indeed, but not the choice of those living in it. It’s your choice; the inevitable consequence of your hatred and fear.

            Whatever, I propose we simply bulldoze policy over and through your hateful whining until your legacy is purged from the land.
            • chris73 13.1.2.1.2.1

              15 June 2014 at 5:33 pm

              “Whatever, I propose we simply bulldoze policy over and through your hateful whining until your legacy is purged from the land.”

              And what legacy is that? That we gave up luxuries so that we could provide a better lifestyle for ourselves in the future? That hard work and strong discipline can lift yourselves higher? That an education (or lack there of) isn’t an impediment to success? That we succeeding means that others can succeed doing exactly the same thing?

              No really I’m curious tell me what my legacy is
              • Colonial Viper …

                15 June 2014 at 5:37 pm

                You’re blind and one of the worst examples of the “I’m doing OK jack” crowd.
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 5:39 pm

                  You just want people to rely on the state first and themselves second, as a country we’ve lost our way
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    15 June 2014 at 5:41 pm

                    The purpose of Government central and local is to help the people, respond to the needs of communities and safeguard the best interests of the citizens against rapacious and greedy corporations and privateers. If you don’t believe in that basic precept, you can fuck off.
                  • One Anonymous Bloke …

                    15 June 2014 at 5:51 pm

                    Definitely stupidity. This moran drank the kool-aid.
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:03 pm

                      I looked up on wikipedia what a moran is but couldn’t see anything that applied so what do you mean?
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:16 pm

                      Widen your search.
                  • Tracey …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:09 pm

                    John key relied on the state first. Widow pension, state house free university…
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:39 pm

                      He then stood on his own and made the choices that led to where he is today and has paid back to NZ ten-fold what was given to him

                      I’m not advocating the complete withdrawl of the benefit system
                    • Tracey …

                      15 June 2014 at 7:58 pm

                      then stop making blanket statements that the world today relies on the state implying in the old days people didnt.

                      hasnt he paid most of career tax to foreign countries. we trained him for free and then he paid taxes somewhere else…

                      you send very mixed signals and then backtrack.

                      do you agree post school education should be free to everyone. if yes, who will you vote for. if no stop indicting those who cant afford to climb up the skills ladder.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                15 June 2014 at 5:42 pm

                CV said it, and I’ll add to that your hate speech.

                Your legacy of hate and complacency looks like the natural order to you, I’m sure. Burn it down.
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:35 pm

                  Ackshully I want every other poor person (or in fact poorer then I) in NZ to do better then me, the country would be a whole let better off
          • phillip ure 13.1.2.1.3

            15 June 2014 at 5:30 pm

            “.I’ll have brought myself a (admittedly late model not brand new) newer car to replace my wifes car and have 2 possibly 3 rentals in Timaru and my wife and I have never made more then 43 grand each in a year ever..”

            ..yr claimed envy of the poorest as them ‘having better then’ you..further up the thread..

            ..is clearly a pile of fresh/stinking bullshit..eh..?

            ..a little man..trying to climb the neo-lib greasy-pole..

            ..and only pausing to piss/shit on those a little lower than him on that pole

            ..un petit-homme..in his petit-monde..
            • chris73 13.1.2.1.3.1

              15 June 2014 at 5:34 pm

              What are you talking about?
              • phillip ure …

                15 June 2014 at 5:51 pm

                that you have to ask that..

                ..just proves my point..

                ..yr ignorances are as wide as they are deep..
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:05 pm

                  No really I don’t understand what it is you’re trying to say, I know my grammar and punctuation isn’t the best but if you re-word it I might have answer for you.
                • phillip ure …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:07 pm

                  and are yr tenants working..?

                  ..or are you slurping/leeching-up that juicy/lovely gummint-money/landlord-subsidy..?

                  ..you fucken hypocrite..
                  • BM …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:19 pm

                    What subsidy or are you talking accommodation supplement.?

                    I’ll be honest Phil, last type of tenant a landlord wants is an unemployed/DPB tenant.
                    Just not worth the hassle and grief.

                    State should be housing the beneficiaries.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:28 pm

                      The state is too busy mopping up after your hate speech.
                    • One Anonymous Bloke …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

                      Let’s unpick this. BM says the state should house all beneficiaries. So someone who gets made redundant and relies on a benefit for a while should be forced into state accomodation. Presumably their existing residential property would be forfeit.

                      I say no: the state should apply the golden rule and do to BM et al what they would do to others.
                    • BM …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

                      Hate speech?

                      I would have thought you’d be all for beneficiaries being housed by the state.

                      Edit
                      OK, how about long term unemployed,invalids and DPBers.

                      From what I’ve read and heard regarding land lords experiences involving the above it would be best if the state was the one providing the accommodation.
                    • Tracey …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:02 pm

                      Actually when the dept of housing housed someone in your property you got guaranteed rents and repair and maintenance covenants. so contrary to your blather intelligent landlords saw that as a good thing.
                    • Tracey …

                      16 June 2014 at 11:26 am

                      I believe you and yet you vote for parties that do the opposite.
                    • minarch …

                      16 June 2014 at 4:02 pm

                      dont lie now son………

                      you know you grab it tight with your pasty gnarled hand while the other hand is busy stuffing it down the front of your pants hoping no body sees your “loot” and tries to take it away

                      because you worked soooooo hard to earn it didnt you ?
                  • chris73 …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:23 pm

                    Why not try to type things out like most people here do, if you can’t ask things properly I can’t answer you

                    However if I’m reading what you’re saying and since I don’t do drugs I can’t really be sure I’d have to say that you’ve got the wrong end of my post, in my post I clearly state that this will happen in the next 6-12 months so it hasn’t happened yet
              • dimebag russell …

                16 June 2014 at 11:35 am

                the rise of the morans!
          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.2.1.4

            15 June 2014 at 6:02 pm

            and have 2 possibly 3 rentals in Timaru and my wife and I have never made more then 43 grand each in a year ever

            Are, right, you’ve set yourself up to be a bludger living upon others work.

            EDIT: Which will, of course, help ensure that those people remain poor.
            • chris73 13.1.2.1.4.1

              15 June 2014 at 6:15 pm

              Keep telling yourself that but if you want to go through this: http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0000262078

              Also known as Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of annual returns as at 31 January 2013

              and let me know which of the left MPS are also “bludgers living upon others work” I’d be grateful, also since Helen Clark is a senior UN official she’ll have her assets in a blind trust so do you think she owns rentals?
              • Colonial Viper …

                15 June 2014 at 6:20 pm

                Oh fuck off Chris73, do you really imagine that telling us that MPs on $150K pa collecting sweet KiwiSaver plans and using Parliamentary Services accommodation allowances to pay off their own mortgages are acting like the 1% is any kind of NEWS to us.
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:26 pm

                  No but it says that since you’re willing to elect them you , Draco T Bastard and anyone else who knows this are massive hypocrites
                  • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:29 pm

                    You are going to try and convince people they shouldn’t vote now?? You really are desperate.
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:33 pm

                      I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote I’m saying you’re massive hypocrites if you do…or maybe demand so better MPs to vote for
                    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:41 pm

                      So what? In order to vote and not be a ‘massive hypocrite’ you should believe in bludging for a living? Or was it lying? You should be a lying thief in order to vote and not be considered a hypocrite by chrith73. What?
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:37 pm

                    Draco T Bastard and anyone else who knows this are massive hypocrites

                    Nope. We’re working within the present system to change the present system to one where owning a rental won’t be a viable option.

                    Of course, if you prefer, we could go for the bloody revolution route instead.
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:42 pm

                      We’re working within the present system to change the present system to one where owning a rental won’t be a viable option.

                      • How will that when the epople owning the rentals are the people making the rules?

                      Of course, if you prefer, we could go for the bloody revolution route instead.

                      • I could use a good laugh 🙂
                    • BM …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:43 pm

                      And you would be right there at the front, gun in hand?

                      Or are you one of the “chosen” ones destined to lead the masses and their fight again the 1%.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      15 June 2014 at 7:08 pm

                      Wow are you guys blind? Civil unrest is increasing in western countries.

                      The UK police are pushing for general approval of water cannon, and the surveillance state is monitoring all our mobile phone, internet and email communications ‘for our own protection’.

                      “Revolution” appears to be exactly what the power elite fear might happen, and they are taking serious steps to counter the possibility.
                    • BM …

                      15 June 2014 at 7:22 pm

                      To be honest CV, I just don’t give a fuck, I’ve get better things to do than get all worked up about shit that may or may not happen.

                      My advice to you, work in the present not some hypothetical world of woe and pain, you’ll be a lot happier as will the people around you.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:29 pm

                      It’s a very real world of woe and pain for hundreds of thousands of NZers and keeping an eye on the road ahead is particularly important at this time, because what it looks like in the UK, USA, Australia, Spain, Greece and other western countries is much less than encouraging.

                      But yeah if you just turn a blind eye to it all like you, you can afford to cheer up and keep smiling as you push pedal to the metal right over the cliff.
                    • BM …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:36 pm

                      Luckily we’re here in good o’l NZ and lucky for us John Key and National’s at the helm doing a great job creating a buffer against all that other nastiness going on around the world.
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:46 pm

                      How will that when the epople owning the rentals are the people making the rules?

                      Well, I’m certainly glad that you agree that we live in a plutocracy. A little disappointed that you see this as a Good Thing but not really surprised. It’s the nature of authoritarians to back totalitarian and oppressive governments.
              • One Anonymous Bloke …

                15 June 2014 at 6:23 pm

                Helen Clark is Chris73’s new ethical benchmark. Um, sure, that sounds plausible 😆
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:27 pm

                  Good enough for Helen then its good enough for me
                  • McFlock …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:32 pm

                    the trouble is that “too evil for Helen” is at a waaaaaay higher level than “too evil for chris”.

                    Helen never pretended that people chose to live in poverty just so she could avoid doing anything to help others.
                    • phillip ure …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:14 pm

                      no..’helen’ just ignored/refused to help/stigmatised them..

                      ..and she so well-prepared the ground/mood/consensus for nationals’/bennetts’ war on the poor..
                  • Tracey …

                    15 June 2014 at 8:05 pm

                    just in property or are you picking and choosing
              • Draco T Bastard …

                15 June 2014 at 6:35 pm

                Helen Clark is a senior UN official she’ll have her assets in a blind trust so do you think she owns rentals?

                I’m sure she does and I’ll call her a bludger as well. In fact, I call anyone who owns a home to let out a bludger.
                • chris73 …

                  15 June 2014 at 6:36 pm

                  Ok fair enough but why? Why does owning a rental property make someone a bludger?
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    15 June 2014 at 6:39 pm

                    Pretty sure I made that clear in the original comment.

                    living upon others work

                    Goes for shareholders as well.
                    • chris73 …

                      15 June 2014 at 6:44 pm

                      Ok what type of investments are ok? For example if I 100% own a company but hire workers is that ok or is that bad?
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      15 June 2014 at 8:49 pm

                      Ok what type of investments are ok?

                      None as their sole purpose is to live on the backs of others, i.e, to be a bludger.

                      For example if I 100% own a company but hire workers is that ok or is that bad?

                      That’s bad. The company shouldn’t be owned at all* and should be run as a cooperative.

                      • The business would be separate legal entity that effectively owns itself but it won’t be a person.
          • geoff 13.1.2.1.5

            15 June 2014 at 8:43 pm

            What are the sacrifices you’ve made, Chris?

            I notice that you begrudge those who are using credit to buy things.
            Did you pay for all the houses you’ve bought without mortgages?

            Debt is now more readily available than probably ever before. In the past it was much more difficult to get credit, just ask anyone who tried to get a mortgage in the 80’s.

            There was an understanding amongst banks and society in general that credit wasn’t extended to anyone and everyone.

            In contrast, today’s lending criteria would be considered extremely irresponsible by the standards of the past.

            You may argue that people should be responsible for the choices they make but it is abundantly clear that many, many people exhibit sub-optimal judgement when making long term decisions, such as those involving financial credit.
            (Even our short term decision making can be poor – eg our binge drinking culture)

            The choice then is either:

            leave it to people to make those poor decisions and let them live with the negative consequences which will ‘teach them a lesson’.

            or

            adjust the rules of society so that it is more difficult for people to make those decisions.

            The first option ignores human nature and is akin to punishing a dog for failing a calculus exam.

            I think it is best to be honest about human nature.
          • minarch 13.1.2.1.6

            16 June 2014 at 3:16 pm

            I STRONGLY suspect you’ve lied by omission somewhere during this rags to riches story

            either way the world you THINK you live in is LOOOONG dead , your kids and their kids and then their kids are all F**ked…
            • tracey 13.1.2.1.6.1

              16 June 2014 at 3:21 pm

              it would be odd if he has kids. 2-3 rentals in oamaru, a new house in rollerston and he and his wife have never exceeded 86k gross total per annum. Especially as he must be freehold on all rentals plus rollerston cos he abhors debt.
      • Draco T Bastard 13.1.3

        15 June 2014 at 5:31 pm

        Its true, the left want to see people stay in low-skilled and low jobs so that they’ll always have a voter base

        It’s National that have been attacking the education system for the last 6 years.

        I do wish though it was an easy as the left right think it is: raise cut taxes to give more to the unemployed on the rich and all the problems in NZ are solved

        FTFY

        The left, BTW, think we need to raise taxes on the rich so that we can get back to building up our society.
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.3.1

          15 June 2014 at 5:35 pm

          Given that you know and I know that as a sovereign issuer of the currency Govt does not need taxes to gain revenue.
          • Draco T Bastard 13.1.3.1.1

            15 June 2014 at 6:13 pm

            That’s the way things should be. Under that system taxes aren’t really there to gain revenue but to prevent over-accumulation of money.

            The way things are taxes are to get government revenue.

            We do need to work on changing the system so that it becomes the former rather than the latter.
            • Colonial Viper 13.1.3.1.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 6:16 pm

              Under that system taxes aren’t really there to gain revenue but to prevent over-accumulation of money.

              Yep. In addition to that, taxes can also be used to drive desired behaviour and direct economic activity to different sectors of the economy.
      • Tracey 13.1.4

        16 June 2014 at 11:18 am

        We tend to think that simply giving people money makes them lazy. Yet a wealth of scientific research proves the contrary: free money helps. It is time for a radical reform of the welfare state.

        https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39
    • Tracey 13.2

      15 June 2014 at 4:26 pm

      you got two words right

      hand

      job
    • dimebag russell 13.3

      15 June 2014 at 4:35 pm

      what a crock of sh*te fizzyani. tories love poverty. its the only way they can be winners when they can point the finger at others. and if you want to know what God thinks about money then just look at the creep jobs that he gives it to.
      • fisiani 13.3.1

        15 June 2014 at 4:54 pm

        Two world views
        “Tories” as you quaintly call them love poverty.
        Versus reality. National are daily bringing hundreds of people off the trap of benefits into employment.
        Take off the blinkers. National have the best interests of the poor at heart. They do not want them to be kept forever in penury (the Labour policy).Surely that is obvious. Wages have risen higher than inflation. Thousands have gained employment. More employed than at any other time in history. Mortgages are still at near record lows thus saving households a fortune. No one wants to go back to the near 11%.
        • Colonial Viper 13.3.1.1

          15 June 2014 at 5:12 pm

          Earth to Fizzy, Earth to Fizzy, come in Fizzy
          • minarch 13.3.1.1.1

            16 June 2014 at 3:18 pm

            we have ALWAYS been at war with earth….
        • karol 13.3.1.2

          15 June 2014 at 5:16 pm

          National are daily bringing hundreds of people off the trap of benefits into employment.

          Ya think?

          And then there’s the under-employment rate, and the little matter of how much people are being paid.

          Then there’s the increasing wealth and income inequality between the top and bottom 10%.

          And it’s at crisis level.

          The wealth gap is the biggest problem, and something fueled by the housing inflation bubble – it’s much harder to decrease wealth inequalities than than it is for income inequality.
        • phillip ure 13.3.1.3

          15 June 2014 at 6:29 pm

          @ fisi..

          “..“Tories” as you quaintly call them love poverty..”

          ..would you prefer we called them randites..?

          ..and most tories are also randites..

          ..and in her twisted/morally-bankrupt excuse for a political-philosophy..

          ..(a philosophy key has admitted he ‘admires’..)

          ..rand preaches that the poor/anyone on state-support are ‘the unworthy’..

          ..and therefor should not receive state-support..

          ..she preached the rich are rich because they are ‘worthy’ people..

          ..pretty fucken sick..eh..?

          ..(and of course..helen clark/that last labour govt. had her/their ayn-rand-moment with her working for (some) families policy..

          ..pure rand..that one…the poorest families..just ‘cos they are the poorest families…deemed to be ‘unworthy’ of the support offered more ‘worthy’ families..who inevitably already earned more than those poorest families..

          ..so cold cold cold in its’ cruelties/marginalising of the (unworthy’) poorest..that one..

          ..anyone still associated with that should still be hanging their fucken heads in shame..

          ..how can that not have been fucken rand on steroids..?

          ..(and you a fucken ‘labour party’..eh..?..)

          ..and labour seem pretty much still stuck in the same ayn rand place..

          ..i don’t see them offering any poverty-busting policies..

          ..which is what is needed..)

          .so..fisi..you can see that tory/randites like yrslf..do ‘hate’ the poor..

          ..and would rather give them nothing..

          ..(and i’ll betcha helen clark has read ayn rand..it totally fits in with her tory-farming background/genes..)
        • Draco T Bastard 13.3.1.4

          15 June 2014 at 6:30 pm

          Tories” as you quaintly call them

          It’s the correct term. What’s you’re problem with it? Or would you really prefer we call them what they’ve become – psychopaths?

          National are daily bringing hundreds of people off the trap of benefits into employment.

          No they’re not. They’re pushing them off benefits with no job and no other income so as to make it look like they’re doing something.

          National have the best interests of the poor at heart.

          No they don’t – they only work to make the rich richer. If they had any concern for the poor they wouldn’t have sold our power generation assets. In fact, they would have turned them back into a state service monopoly.

          They do not want them to be kept forever in penury

          Yes they do, that’s why they keep throwing people off benefits when they have no other support.

          Wages have risen higher than inflation.

          That depends upon how rich you are. The wages at the top have gone up. The wages at the bottom have probably gone down in real terms.

          More employed than at any other time in history.

          That doesn’t mean much considering that we’ve also got more people than at any other time in history. The percentage of unemployed still remains high.

          Mortgages are still at near record lows thus saving households a fortune. No one wants to go back to the near 11%.

          If we had a rational economic system the interest on mortgages would be non-existent and the interest rates are heading back to 11% quite rapidly.
          • srylands 13.3.1.4.1

            15 June 2014 at 8:09 pm

            The only people that call them “Tories” are a subsection of posters at The Standard. It really is quite ridiculous. You simply never hear the term Tories in New Zealand in real conversation with real people.

            You are a faded embittered communist relic from the 1950s. It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone who has this belief system that supports state run monopolies supplying power and zero interest rates on money, along with the other mad ideas you have. If your ideas prevailed we would be a cross between Samoa and Zimbabwe.

            But fortunately your ideas will never prevail.
            • Colonial Viper 13.3.1.4.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 8:24 pm

              You simply never hear the term Tories in New Zealand in real conversation with real people.

              Given the fact that you’re a foreigner who has never been in NZ, how the fuck would you know what “real” New Zealanders say in “real conversations”?
              • dimebag russell …

                15 June 2014 at 8:33 pm

                +1 cv.
                bonus issue and instant replay.
            • dimebag russell 13.3.1.4.1.2

              15 June 2014 at 8:31 pm

              oh wah wah wah.
              go and read a book you fool an stop wasting peoples time with your piss weak excuse for not doing anything..
            • Draco T Bastard 13.3.1.4.1.3

              15 June 2014 at 9:02 pm

              You simply never hear the term Tories in New Zealand in real conversation with real people.

              You may not, I do.

              If your ideas prevailed we would be a cross between Samoa and Zimbabwe.

              No, we wouldn’t. In fact, we’d be far better off due to the fact that we’d no longer be pushing our society far beyond sustainable practice.
            • minarch 13.3.1.4.1.4

              16 June 2014 at 2:49 pm

              ive heard a self confessed national supporter call THEMSELVES Tory…
    • McFlock 13.4

      15 June 2014 at 4:52 pm

      more like:
      given them a match (Labour) or set them on fire (National)
      • fisiani 13.4.1

        15 June 2014 at 7:18 pm

        I’m always amazed and saddened by the views expressed here that National wants to set people on fire, wants to wage war on the poor and treat people badly. This is so so wrong headed. Never in all my years in the Party have I ever heard anyone with such views. Quite the contrary. This is a psychological phenomenon known as mislabeling. Every reform or saving or improvement is seen as evidence of class warfare simply because it is promoted by National. Let me quote Nationals values within its constitution. Surely they are reasonable values. All National policies are based on these values.
        (b) Values
        We believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the
        following values:
        • Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as
        Head of State
        • National and personal security
        • Equal citizenship and equal opportunity
        • Individual freedom and choice
        • Personal responsibility
        • Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement
        • Limited government
        • Strong families and caring communities
        • Sustainable development of our environment
        • phillip ure 13.4.1.1

          15 June 2014 at 7:20 pm

          a new benchmark set for ‘words-are-cheap’..?
          • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 13.4.1.1.1

            15 June 2014 at 7:29 pm

            +1 well said phillip ure
          • fisiani 13.4.1.1.2

            15 June 2014 at 7:33 pm

            All matched by actions over the last six years.
            Read about mislabeling then get professional help.
            • blue leopard 13.4.1.1.2.1

              15 June 2014 at 7:50 pm

              Fisiani,
              Are you saying that if someone doesn’t agree with that stuff you just made up off the top of your head, then they need professional help?
              • fisiani …

                15 June 2014 at 8:35 pm

                Can you point out which “stuff” I just made up? I do not do that.
                • McFlock …

                  15 June 2014 at 8:38 pm

                  All matched by actions over the last six years.

                  you made that up, for a start.
                  • fisiani …

                    15 June 2014 at 9:06 pm

                    Every action of the last six years conforms with the National Party values that reasonable people agree with. Self evident truth
                    • McFlock …

                      15 June 2014 at 9:38 pm

                      So the GCSB spying on NZ citizens is loyalty to our democratic principles?

                      So Ecanz was loyalty to democratic princples and limited government?

                      So cabinet ministers making calls to police on behalf of wealthy businessmen accused of domestic violence is Equal citizenship and equal opportunity?

                      Punishing children with poverty for the lack of “success” of their parents is “personal responsibility”?

                      You’re fucking delusional.
            • phillip ure 13.4.1.1.2.2

              15 June 2014 at 7:51 pm

              “..then get professional help..”

              the poor don’t ‘get professional help’..

              ..they can’t afford it/to..

              ..eh..?
        • McFlock 13.4.1.2

          15 June 2014 at 7:32 pm

          We looks at what they do, not the pretty words in a party constitution that Key has obviously never read.
          • fisiani 13.4.1.2.1

            15 June 2014 at 7:38 pm

            Again read about mislabeling.
            It is treatable.

            I am amazed that support for National is just 52.5% . Given the values and fulfillment of these values so demonstrably I cannot understand why National are not polling over 70%
            • McFlock 13.4.1.2.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 7:42 pm

              Yeah.
              We can vote out national in september.

              If the national caucus believed any of the stuff in that list, then NZ children wouldn’t live in poverty.
              • blue leopard …

                15 June 2014 at 7:47 pm

                well said McFlock
              • fisiani …

                15 June 2014 at 7:58 pm

                Of course you can vote National out but only if you lie to the public. You can fool some people all of the time.
                The National caucus fully supports the $500 million support package for families announced in the Budget. State houses are no longer slums. You don’t make people richer by keeping them on a benefit. Look all around. We are on the right track say 64%. I can only imagine you are a callow youth. I used to believe Leftist bullshit as a boy and young man. Once I was educated I could no longer be a Leftist. This is why socialism will not survive the 21st century. It is a failed theory based on the writings of Marx and Engels over a hundred years ago.
                Look at values above that I copied out. Which of them fills you with such irrational fear?
                • Tracey …

                  15 June 2014 at 8:09 pm

                  once you settled on money as the underlying measure of success you starting voting national

                  fify
                • Tracey …

                  15 June 2014 at 8:12 pm

                  remind me how many global economic collapses involving banks in the last 200 years emanating in capitalist countries
                • McFlock …

                  15 June 2014 at 8:37 pm

                  fisi,

                  they don’t fill me with fear. What concerns me is that you fucks confuse “You don’t make people richer by keeping them on a benefit.” with the fact that kicking them off a benefit simply makes them and their children even more poor.
                  • fisiani …

                    15 June 2014 at 9:02 pm

                    Where on earth does kicking anyone off a benefit take place in New Zealand. This is simply not happening.
                    • McFlock …

                      15 June 2014 at 9:32 pm

                      Are you fucking serious???
                    • Macro …

                      15 June 2014 at 10:38 pm

                      What part of remuera do you live in?
                    • Draco T Bastard …

                      15 June 2014 at 10:42 pm

                      Happens all the time. Personally, I think that case managers are instructed to find ways to kick people off the benefit as they seem to go to a lot of effort to make up BS to kick people off. I know this because I had it happen to me.
        • phillip ure 13.4.1.3

          15 June 2014 at 7:48 pm

          • Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as
          Head of State..

          (excuse for war-mongering..)

          • National and personal security

          (excuse for warmongering/spying on everyone..)

          • Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

          (a laughable joke that one..national fosters inequalities..)

          • Individual freedom and choice

          (shorthand for give-them-nothing/poor-bashing..and nothing removes ‘Individual freedom and choice’..like poverty..)

          • Personal responsibility

          (see previous..)

          • Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

          ..(corporate-welfare..)

          Limited government..

          (yeah..!..sure..!..national are nanny-state on steroids..)

          • Strong families and caring communities..

          (a bit ‘sick’ of them to make that claim..eh..?..cynicism off the scale..that one..)

          • Sustainable development of our environment

          (do nothing about climatechange..in fact..drill )..baby..!..drill..!..mine..!..baby..!..mine..!

          ..more dairy cows..!..)

          ..national plan to increase our emissions by 50% over the next ten years..

          ..they are hell-bent on making us international environmental pariahs..

          ..mm-kay..?

          ..complete and utter bullshit..all of it…
          • fisiani 13.4.1.3.1

            15 June 2014 at 8:10 pm

            My bad. I obviously need to explain mislabeling. As a mental health professional I made the assumption of thinking that was a common term. Read the following link to discover how normal behaviour can be interpreted as evidence of mental illness but only after the person has been mislabeled. The postings above are clear testimony to this delusion. Mr Ure is a particularly bad case.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
            • Tracey 13.4.1.3.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 8:15 pm

              physician heal thyself
            • minarch 13.4.1.3.1.2

              16 June 2014 at 2:45 pm

              Im sure you check all the right boxes for a psychopath too !
        • srylands 13.4.1.4

          15 June 2014 at 8:12 pm

          You are wasting your time. The “headline” on banks and child poverty reminds me of the headlines I used to see in the student newspaper while I was at uni. In fact the whole “The Standard” collective (oops I am not allowed to call it a collective I might be banned. Oh well who gives a fuck) is just like a relic of 1970s student newspapers written by confused 19 year olds.

          Of course most of them grow up. The ones that don’t become authors at The Standard.
          • fisiani 13.4.1.4.1

            15 June 2014 at 8:18 pm

            Well said Sir. I am an optimist who believes that some Leftists will be cured of their adolescent fixations but some clearly do not want to leave the dark side.
            I suspect they will never read the link I provided to the infamous Rosenham experiment
            • blue leopard 13.4.1.4.1.1

              15 June 2014 at 8:34 pm

              Oh, so that was a joke was it? That you state you are a physician and then link to an article that states physicians can’t tell the difference between sanity and insanity at the same time as advising someone to go and get professional help.
              That kind of sums up the rest of your comments – totally messed up.
              Please tell me it was a joke.
              • dimebag russell …

                15 June 2014 at 8:37 pm

                its just his funny way of laughing BL.
                teehee.
                goodnight.
              • fisiani …

                15 June 2014 at 8:42 pm

                Read it again. It explains how easy it is for human beings to err. I am not joking.
                • blue leopard …

                  15 June 2014 at 8:46 pm

                  Are you a human being?
          • dimebag russell 13.4.1.4.2

            15 June 2014 at 8:35 pm

            how randian.
            she called her gang the collective and in the end they all hated her and deserted her.
            • fisiani 13.4.1.4.2.1

              15 June 2014 at 8:50 pm

              I give up. Randian, Tories. Believe those crazy labels and my reasonable comments are misinterpreted. Goodnight and goodbye.

              As proof of your delusion I am not even of the Right. I am clearly caring and Centre-Right.
              • dimebag russell …

                15 June 2014 at 9:04 pm

                are you the same guy that writes john keys cue cards?
                boy?
            • minarch 13.4.1.4.2.2

              16 June 2014 at 4:32 pm

              Ayn Rand ended up on welfare in the end..
          • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.4.3

            15 June 2014 at 9:07 pm

            Says the person living in denial of reality.
          • dimebag russell 13.4.1.4.4

            16 June 2014 at 12:25 am

            up against the wall muthaf*cka!
        • Draco T Bastard 13.4.1.5

          15 June 2014 at 9:04 pm

          Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as
          Head of State

          Proven false by John Banks and his RWNJ supporters.

          Really, all you’ve proven there is that National lies in everything.
        • minarch 13.4.1.6

          16 June 2014 at 2:48 pm

          bet ya that all changes when you get behind closed doors at the lodge eh “brother”
    • The Al1en 13.5

      15 June 2014 at 6:42 pm

      Those people changing to national must be pretty stupid then.
      Ignoring the first one, that could easily be a Green/Labour manifesto.

      And those nats wouldn’t give away a fishing rod, they’re more likely to beat them with it.
14. Psycho Milt 14

    15 June 2014 at 3:54 pm

    And it’s a view that’s gaining in support. The Children’s Commissioner says left-wing voters place child poverty third on their list of priorities for this election.

    It’s a couple of places lower for right-wingers, but still important.

    Well, yeah. There presumably aren’t many people who are chuffed about children living in poverty. However, the fact that most people share Wills’ and Boston’s concerns doesn’t at all mean a general consensus on what to do about it.

    I haven’t seen anything from Wills about how decades of paying people not to bother raising children in a family has resulted in hordes of feckless wasters running production lines of future wasters who’ll knife a dairy owner for some small change. A universal child benefit’s a no-brainer, but first I want to see what the proposals are for throttling the runaway waster production process. Until policy enthusiasts start coming up with those, they can forget about offering the ones that will only accelerate it.
    • McFlock 14.1

      15 June 2014 at 5:06 pm

      but first I want to see what the proposals are for throttling the runaway waster production process.

      🙄
      • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 14.1.1

        15 June 2014 at 5:24 pm

        Yes, what is that even referring to? 😯

        The Banksters who create financial crises and spend their nights with prostitutes snorting coke and drinking?

        Or the leeches in NZ who continue to make larger profits than they should by fairly well obliging the government to pay social security supplements to their employees in response to the unaffordable wages they provide?

        It is time these things were addressed.
      • minarch 14.1.2

        17 June 2014 at 7:18 am

        I think you mean eugenics dont you ?

        maybe forced/coerced sterilization ?

        or round em up into cattle cars and of to the gulag ?
15. phillip ure 15

    15 June 2014 at 6:16 pm

    italy vs. england..?

    ..being of multi-celt descent…

    ..i support anyone against england..eh..?

    ..i haven’t fucken forgotten/forgiven..
16. phillip ure 16

    15 June 2014 at 6:43 pm

    and any doubts that child-poverty is ignored due to endemic-establishment racism..can be stilled..

    ..one in six pakeha children live in poverty..

    ..one in three maori/pasifika children live in poverty..

    ..hard to argue/spin that fact/stat away…eh..?
17. dimebag russell 17

    15 June 2014 at 7:50 pm

    cut to the chase.
    studies and practice show that governments can distribute benefits more widely in any given situation depending on the will of the people.
    What needs to happen to address this problem is an entirely new cadre of trained professionals to administer a system that at present is still the ideological experiment of the nineties.
    If the National party does not address this matter in a proper manner then they will be deemed responsible for any future social debacles.
18. joe90 18

    15 June 2014 at 8:06 pm

    To big to fail and getting bigger.

    BILL MOYERS: Can what happened six years ago happen again?

    ANAT ADMATI: Yes. Because the banks continue, the financial system continues to be fragile and the banks continue to live dangerously. And when you speed at 100 miles an hour, you might explode and harm other people.

    BILL MOYERS: And that’s what they’re doing, 100 miles an hour, despite the fact that we thought after the crash that we had learned some lessons; we were going to have a discussion and institute some reforms that would prevent it from happening again?

    ANAT ADMATI: We have a tweak, is what we have. We have some tweaks. We have messy, unfocused efforts. But we haven’t really gotten to the heart of the matter and really managed to control this system effectively.

    BILL MOYERS: But as you surely know, the bankers tell us, not only do we have a safer system, but it’s getting even better as reforms are put into place. You look skeptical.

    ANAT ADMATI: Well, they are truly trying to confuse people with their narratives. They just– either speaking a language that nobody can understand, or they say things, sometimes, that are completely wrong. And sometimes they’re just misleading.

    But if you step back and look at the system, it’s very fragile. It’s one of those systems that’s like a big house of cards. You touch it, stuff can happen fast. And it’s far from any system that we would think of as reasonably stable, able to support the economy, all of that.

    http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-too-big-to-fail-and-getting-bigger/

    http://billmoyers.com/wp-content/themes/billmoyers/transcript-print.php?post=81095
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      15 June 2014 at 8:09 pm

      And this time sovereign balance sheets are completely tapped out due to bailing out Too Big To Fail in 2008, so there is no backstop left.

      Hence they have gotten the system ready for “bail in’s” where they can take savers monies directly from private bank accounts and give them to banks which are in trouble.

      NZ already passed legislation for this.
      • Tracey 18.1.1

        15 June 2014 at 8:14 pm

        but financial cannabilsm is a success cv…
        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1

          15 June 2014 at 8:26 pm

          Well, especially for the 0.01% and still but somewhat less so their professional minions and servants, the top 5%
19. dimebag russell 19

    16 June 2014 at 12:27 am

    anyway I think fizzyanus was a computer programme.
    hmmmmmm.
    I wonder how much hooton&boag paid for that one?
20. xtasy 20

    16 June 2014 at 8:08 am

    You are onto it Karol, good job, keep it up, we need more awakening, as too many slumber in indifference or brainwashed stupor.
21. TeWhareWhero 21

    16 June 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The notion that all the poor are poor because of the ‘bad’ choices they make is as absurd as arguing that all the rich are rich because of their ‘good’ choices.

    The idea that we can ‘choose’ what level of wealth we want and acquire / retain is either an expression of extreme naivety and ignorance of both contemporary reality and history, or, it’s the work of a Troll. (Acronym for ‘thick rightwing obnoxious loudmouthed lout’ or the Type II variant – a ‘two-faced rightwing opinionated labrynthine liar’. The latter is far more annoying because they crave attention and will even self-flagellate in order to get people to take notice of them.)

    The simple, inescapable fact – known to all except the Troll – is that the capitalist system is based on a fundamental inequality. The only way those who lack economic and / or political power can force positive change is in combination with others – and history is littered with the evidence of the use of the State by the powerful to prevent the powerless from combining to force change.

    The rich and powerful used to argue that god gave them their wealth and power but that pesky little notion of human rights put the kibosh on that and so the ideology of the ‘meritocracy’ was born. We have the same grossly unequal division of wealth and status but justified on the grounds that the rich and powerful are more meritorious or deserving because they are more talented, hard working etc – and of course, the flip side of that dirty little coin – the poor are less deserving because they are stupid, feckless, lazy etc.

    In fact, Fisiani, if you want some evidence of the pernicious work of ‘labelling’ theory – you don’t need to look any further than the labelling of the ‘feral underclass’. These people are so much consigned to the realms of the barely human they don’t have children, they ‘breed’ or ‘spawn’, and proto-fascist commentators can call for their sterilisation and not only keep their jobs, but be feted for it.

    The simple, inescapable fact is that the global capitalist system does not and cannot accommodate ALL people being rich – or even ALL people being well off. It creates and perpetuates a class of poor because it needs them. The ‘poor’ are not homogenous – there are of course degrees of poverty. In this relatively affluent country, where most working people are kept afloat by credit extended to them by banks which gouge profits out of their debtors’ lives, we have very few utterly poor people but our relative affluence rests on a vast pool of impoverished people in other countries. The presence of the utterly poor reminds the relatively poor of countries like ours what might happen to them if they challenge the definition of success or seek to sabotage the Great Race.

    Excuse me while I divert into the realm of the extended metaphor which might help people like Chris73 get a more balanced perspective on the matter.

    Capitalism sets up a continuous and compulsory ‘race’ to what it defines as ‘success’ -ie the accumulation of private wealth in the form of money, land and things. The higher placed you are in the race, the more wealthy you get and the more things and advantages you can buy and the more wealth you can accumulate.

    By any objective measure, the accumulation of more wealth and things than one can ever need or sensibly use may be said to be the very opposite of ‘success’. It may in fact be said to be a symptom of a highly disordered or poorly formed personality – an extreme form of ‘hoarding’. In a poor person, hoarding is judged to be pathological; in a rich person it’s judged to be a virtue. How weird is that?

    Race officials and PR people (aka ideologues) are paid handsomely to convince the runners of how essential and how fair the race is. They have to convince the runners that, those who have won the race so handsomely and so often they now don’t need to run at all but just collect their winnings, and those who are in the process of winning or being well placed, are more talented, skilled, train harder etc etc. In other words they have made GOOD CHOICES.

    The flip side is that those who are always trailing in last, don’t make the finish line or can’t even get to the start line, are less talented, lazy, feckless, wasted their time watching tele instead of training, traded in their running shoes for fags and booze, i.e. they made BAD CHOICES.

    The lackeys have to do this to disguise the rather obvious fact that the tiny minority of the most advantaged people get to run on wider, smoother, level inside lanes whilst the outer most lanes are not only crowded with runners, they are steeply cambered, narrow and uneven. What makes the race even more unfair is that the start is not staggered to allow for the shorter distance of the inner tracks, and parents on the outer tracks, usually women, are often forced to run while carrying children.

    Grossly unfair though it is, if the outer track runners complain or combine to boycott the race until it is made more fair – or – worst of all – question the very definition of ‘success’ – they will find themselves pushed even further back from the start line or forced to run in hobbles or blind folded – or be banned from the stadium along with all the world’s utterly poor whose only function is to remind the relatively poor of what might happen to them if they don’t keep running.

    Of course a few of the middle runners manage to elbow and barge their way onto the inner tracks – and even a few on the outer tracks, by virtue of things like extraordinary talent or extreme viciousness or sheer luck get well placed. These few anomalies are used by the lackeys to add weight to the lie that where you run and where you are placed is all down to the CHOICES you make.

    However hard those in the middle and outer lanes run, most of them can never win the big prizes – and some of them console themselves with the thought that at least they are beating all those deadbeats crammed into the outer lanes.

    They may know that the innermost lanes are reserved for the exclusive use of the elite – as it has always been – and may know deep in their hearts that it is grossly unfair but instead of protesting the unfairness, some of them get quite brutal in their defence of it.

    How bizarre.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS