Choices choices

Written By: - Date published: 8:30 pm, May 12th, 2011 - 40 comments
Categories: Economy, labour, national - Tags: , , ,

Watch Jacinda Ardern clean up Jamie-Lee Ross on Breakfast this morning. Nearly half of the National Government’s much-quoted borrowing of $300 million a week is to pay for their tax cuts. That was this government’s choice. Now their choice is that everyone else has to pay for it.

40 comments on “Choices choices ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Uncle Helen 1
    12 May 2011 at 9:35 pm

    $300 million a week is to pay for their tax cuts.

    Translating socialist drivel into English:

    “To pay the welfare costs of the Labour-voting parasites who simply will not contribute to society.”

    • Lanthanide 1.1
      12 May 2011 at 9:58 pm

      Yip, all the people on benefits, including superannuation, don’t contribute anything to society at all. Our economy and country would be so much better off if all just vanished.

      Idiot.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      12 May 2011 at 10:16 pm

      UH

      You are a parasitic imbecille.  You understand nothing.  Your comprehension of reality is that poor that you think that your comments are relevant.

      Please go away and gain some intelligence and then come back and make a comment.  And please choose a better name.  HC was a wonderful leader and your insulting caricature is degrading of her and indicative of how stupid you are.

      • joe bloggs 1.2.1
        13 May 2011 at 8:20 am

        One could say the same to you MickeyS.

        Poor Michael Joseph Savage, also known as Pinwheel Mick – due to the way he keeps turning in his grave after some sycophantic twat parodies his name…

    • calltoaccount 1.3
      12 May 2011 at 10:16 pm

      Nice to see you acknowledge the existence of a “society” UC. Some of your favourite leaders wouldn’t even accept that … “”There’s no such thing as society.”

      Be better if you removed yourself from this one, troll.

    • Colonial Viper 1.4
      13 May 2011 at 12:56 am

      “To pay the welfare costs of the Labour-voting parasites who simply will not contribute to society.”

      yeah and those Labour voting parasites are going to vote your sorry ass out 😀

      • chris73 1.4.1
        15 May 2011 at 8:17 am

        Yes they will because thats the nature of NZ politics, do you want National or Labour? All you have to do is wait a maximum of three terms (sometimes less) and the parties swop around

    • Morrissey 1.5
      14 May 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Idiot.

  2. Herodotus 2
    12 May 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Something wrong with the numbers here “..Nearly half of the National Government’s much-quoted borrowing of $300 million a week is to pay for their tax cuts..” The tax cuts did not value at $7.8b. On your link Jacinda commented that it was $2.5b. Someone has it wrong. I put my money on you sorry Mike- Jacinda delivers her message in a more compelling manner !!!

    • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 2.1
      13 May 2011 at 9:36 am

      Part of the problem appears to be this statement from John Key earlier in the week:

      The Government would borrow $20b this year. That is more than needed, but Key said the Government was taking advantage of favourable market conditions. ”On a weekly basis, that averages out to new debt of $380m a week. That … increase in debt is absolutely unaffordable,” he said.

      In other words he seems to be borrowing more than he needs just because he’s getting a good interest rate (or something), so the borrowing programme seems to have long since stripped the gears that would normally connect it to reality.

      Who in their right mind borrows more than they need, and then bitches about how indebted the country is?

      • Olwyn 2.1.1
        13 May 2011 at 9:43 am

        According to David Cunliffe on Red Alert they are doing some of next years borrowing now so that they can say next year that things are improving and we are borrowing less:

        http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/05/11/budget-faqs/

        • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 2.1.1.1
          13 May 2011 at 10:54 am

          Interesting idea. Let’s say they borrow an extra $1 billion they don’t currently need at the effective 5.5% Treasury rate; that’s going to stick us with a $55 million interest bill to have the money sitting in an account unused for a year, at a time when government revenues are falling.

          It’s becoming almost impossible to parody these morons.

          • Herodotus 2.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2011 at 11:26 am

            Over borrowing does work Ask the Japanese worker or Belgium dentist who borrows then ships this money to NZ at greather rates than what they borrow. ref the cash and carry trade.
            I await the headline. NZ govt has greater liquidity, yet there is a neutral result in NZ inc balance sheet. The wisdom of having someone with some financial skills, that we have perviously been lacking in 😉

            • The Economic Illiteracy Support Group 2.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2011 at 11:36 am

              There is, of course, no evidence that Bill and John are displaying anything like the financial acumen of a Belgian dentist. Bringing forward a debt obligation will simply cost more in interest costs with no proof that the money is being invested in a way that offsets these costs.

              • Herodotus …
                14 May 2011 at 5:38 pm

                If as per D Cunliff about 1/2 of the $300m is to refinace debt. then $150m/week is to cover cashflow deficits = $8b. Excluding investment gains from ACC, NZSF which are not cash items and I imagine are positive. I am lost as to how we have a operating deficit of $16b, borrow $8b so how was the other $8b financed? or is this a future liability e.g. Cant E/Q and so we are only borrowing $8b p.a. in reality and govt net debt is only increasing by 4% p.a with GDP.

  3. Lazy Susan 3
    12 May 2011 at 10:31 pm

    This is the first time I’ve seen Jacinda – very impressive. The double-speak out of National continues – they want to “boost saving” so propose to remove incentives to save – what the f…

    Their transferance of wealth from the many to the few continues. People will wake up at some point and realise that they have been conned by these carpet baggers. I hope it’s before they gain a second term as that is when the real damage will be done. One thing I am certain of is that Key will not see out a second term – he’s too worried about his legacy and as much said so in an interview last week on National Radio.

    • Deadly_NZ 3.1
      12 May 2011 at 11:27 pm

      Legacy??? Lets see A Clownish, Narcissistic, Pathological liar with a God like fantasy. Should not be allowed out with out a mirror, photographers, and diplomatic squad. In wrap around sunglasses,and ear pieces with hidden microphones, running after him to show him how important he is. Beware Highly dangerous especially in company of his ilk and beyond.

  4. Irascible 4
    12 May 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Interestingly the demand for foodbank assistance (Eastern Courier story) has risen in Howick, part of the Botany electorate, under Jammy’s stewardship. Not a good look if he was a responsible MP but in keeping with his adoration of Key’s policy of creating the society that makes poverty a life style choice.

  5. Georgecom 5
    12 May 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Good to see Ross pinned on the point that somehow ‘borrowing to boost savings’ is worse than ‘borrowing to pay for tax cuts’. When it comes to fiscal matters it seems more and more that with this government that the truth doesn’t matter so much.

  6. ianmac 6
    12 May 2011 at 11:12 pm

    What a confident compelling speaker is Jacinda. Jamie looks smug and closed. Jacinda looks open and intelligent. Expect to see her in cabinet after November.

    • Lanthanide 6.1
      12 May 2011 at 11:23 pm

      JLR comes across as a smarmy and entitled twerp. He’s very precise when it comes to repeating the National Party line, as evidenced in this interview.

      There was also a really funny point in the Botany by-election leaders debate when Penny Bright completely and utterly embarrassed him by saying that National now refer to ‘privitisation’ as ‘mixed ownership’. JLR got up next and rattled off his spiel… about how ‘mixed ownership’ would save the day.

      The whole thing is worth watching, but Penny’s specific comments start at 0:27, and JLR at 2:35

  7. Olwyn 7
    12 May 2011 at 11:55 pm

    I am very impressed by Jacinta. She has a warm, natural manner and is attentive, articulate and on target.

    • adriank 7.1
      13 May 2011 at 12:54 pm

      It doesn’t hurt that she’s fairly attractive too!

      • Colonial Viper 7.1.1
        14 May 2011 at 12:59 pm

        Fairly? Very! 🙂

        • Herodotus 7.1.1.1
          14 May 2011 at 2:45 pm

          Still CV pity her spin does not add up, like her opposition all they are doing it appears is read cue cards and regurgitate what the spin drs tell them. Keep on message and turn the brain off. I hear she may be a shinning star she had better tighten up on her maths. But J.A. is not the only one.

          • Pascal's bookie 7.1.1.1.1
            15 May 2011 at 10:04 am

            I can’t really be arsed checking, but if you work out what the shortfall is in the supposedly neutral tax package, you’ll find out how much the income tax cuts cost in terms of borrowing.

        • chris73 7.1.1.2
          15 May 2011 at 8:19 am

          Needs to sort those teeth out though (only mentioning it because others bought her looks up)

  8. Betty 8
    13 May 2011 at 10:48 am

    Jamie-Lee’s heroes are Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher. He’s a dinosaur in a young person suit. National are in trouble if this is their future talent.

  9. ieuan 9
    13 May 2011 at 12:27 pm

    All Jamie-Lee Ross had to say was ‘We bought in tax cuts to stimulate the economy, in a recession we don’t want to reverse these. Long term savings are good but right now is not a good time to be borrowing to save.’

    That would have been better than the waffle that he came up with.

    Disclaimer: I don’t believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy – the clear evidence is they don’t and Nationals economic strategy (if they have one) is a joke.

  10. NeoConservative_Provocateur 10
    13 May 2011 at 12:53 pm

    I would like to offer my humble apologies for the standard of neoconservative provocation exhibited by ‘Uncle Helen’.

    I am all for robust democratic debate within commonly accepted conventions of logic, rhetoric, and fair play – but I have admit that he (or she) was not being constructive, or even humorous.

    Unfortunately, it may be a foretaste of what is to come during this election.

  11. simpleton 11
    13 May 2011 at 1:45 pm

    I almost nearly met her once. But I still want to see her get the best of Simon Bridges. That west Auckland education is good for being combative though…

    Jami Lee reminds me of what a Golem from Terry Pratchet might look like if the paper in it’s head said ” borrowing bad. Kiwisaver cuts good”.

  12. SBW 12
    13 May 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Jacinda screws up her maths. She states that the Govt gave out $2.4b in tax cuts (ignoring the fact that there were other changes to taxation which made the net effect neutral), and then says that it is costing $130m per week. That works out to be $6.76b per annum. Fail Jacinda.

    • Herodotus 12.1
      13 May 2011 at 8:01 pm

      Yes SBW Icommented regarding this with Mike Smiths headline for this comment 2. Yet not one person picked it up. Do we have a govt that is making poor choices or others that are unable to deal with simple division and cross check this with the 52 times table? Perhaps Nat have got it right by intro Nat Stds !!!
      Pity that the message is far more important than being factual.
      I thoughtthat some connected to the site in an official capacity would have at least made the correction to the post and pointed out Jacinda’s error. Just as many here have pointed out to (Wellington Central ????? MP) JLR reading off script the same can also be said from J.A. !!!
      Warning Sarcasm has been used in some places!!!

    • Colonial Viper 12.2
      14 May 2011 at 1:01 pm

      (ignoring the fact that there were other changes to taxation which made the net effect neutral

      The net effect was neutral?

      Not if you are Bill English’s household, where the net effect was +$400 or so a week! And not if you are John Key’s household, where the net effect was +$1000 or more a week!

      So, tell me again which part of this tax change was “neutral”?

      Because to me, if the rich pricks are getting way more, someone else must be getting way less.

      Maybe you can’t do your sums eh.

    • Tangled up in blue 12.3
      14 May 2011 at 1:27 pm

      What other changes to taxation made the effect neutral?

  13. Morrissey 13
    14 May 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Note how Jamie-Lee Ross doesn’t talk about “people”, he says “New Zealanders”. He’s following the practice of his Dear Leader, who slips it into nearly every sentence he utters—along with “opportunity” and “aspirational”.

    This pernicious practice was started as a conscious strategy under Bill Clinton’s odious administration. Clinton started talking about “the American people” instead of “people”, and it was taken up by Bob Dole and Bush Jr. Barack Obama, the black version of Clinton, also uses the phrase pitilessly.

    Shame on all of these these shallow, programmed, coiffured morons.

  14. Mike 14
    15 May 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Uncle Helen – what a silly thing to say. This govt borrows a billion a month to pay for the ever increasing numbers on the dole (the only thing this govt seems to be able to produce) – Key is a do nothing – no ideas leader taking us closer and closer to the likes of Ireland and Iceland

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.