Frankly Speaking: Identifying a hypocrite in three easy steps

Written By: - Date published: 11:13 am, July 31st, 2012 - 103 comments
Categories: benefits, class war, john key, poverty - Tags: ,

Many of those who participate in the comments here at The Standard also run their own excellent blogs. We regularly feature No Right Turn and Imperator Fish. Today we’re reposting (with permission) pieces from two other blogs that attracted some attention in Open mike recently. First up here’s Frankly Speaking…

Identifying a hypocrite in three easy steps

1.

Source

2.

Full story

3.

Full story

So poverty is a result of  “poor choices”?

I guess that justifies Dear Leader John Key turning his back on society’s most vulnerable. After all,  “poor choices” justifies blaming the poor for being poor, instead of having $50 million in their bank account.

So Mr Key, how did that free tertiary education and subsidised state house work out for you?

103 comments on “Frankly Speaking: Identifying a hypocrite in three easy steps ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. captain hook 1
    31 July 2012 at 11:31 am

    They dont serve two minute noodles at Bellamy’s.

  2. captain hook 2
    31 July 2012 at 11:31 am

    or canned spaghetti either.

  3. Kotahi Tāne Huna 3
    31 July 2012 at 11:33 am

    “Mr Key, how did that free tertiary education and subsidised state house work out for you?”

    Answer: “It turned me into a mendacious looter with flexible ethics…”

    • weka 3.1
      31 July 2012 at 12:24 pm

      You think Key has ethics?

    • Gosman 3.2
      31 July 2012 at 1:01 pm

      Are people no longer able to get subsidised state housing?

      • fender 3.2.1
        31 July 2012 at 1:09 pm

        Yeah Gosh man there’s so many state houses for the increasing number of poor.

        Just keep your head in the sand golly gosh.

        • Gosman 3.2.1.1
          31 July 2012 at 1:18 pm

          So there are still subsidised state houses then. Thanks for confirming that.

          The entire last sentence from Frank Macasey sums up the intellectual emptyness of ,many on the left. Not only do we still have subsidised state housing but our Tertiary education sector is also heavily subsidised as well. On top of this simply because we had a policy that some people benefitted from before doesn’t mean that policy should be always followed. If we took that to the logical conclusion the age of eligibility for National superannuation should never ever be altered to a higher age. In short a nonsensical argument.

          • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.1.1
            31 July 2012 at 1:42 pm

            Aside from empty, snide remarks such as , “the entire last sentence from Frank Macasey sums up the intellectual emptyness of ,many on the left” – do you actually have any facts to present to us?

            I notice you don’t address any of the points I raised. I suspect that’s because you don’t really care, Gosman, and are more interested in your own ego, rather than the growing poverty that afflicts our society.

            In fact, your argument here, beggars belief,

            “On top of this simply because we had a policy that some people benefitted from before doesn’t mean that policy should be always followed.”

            Why shouldn’t we follow policies that were successful and benefitted us? Especially, my little arrogant, close-minded friend, when you propose NO ALTERNATIVE whatsoever.

            • Gosman 3.2.1.1.1.1
              31 July 2012 at 3:12 pm

              There are plenty of reasons why we should no longer follow policies that benefitted people in the past. In the case of both Superannuation age of entitlement and requiring Tertiary students to help fund part of their studies the main case is the cost of continuing the previous policy becomes higher due to changing demographics and/or behaviour from those taking advantage of the policy. You yourself have made noises about the costs of National Superannuation and seem to be supportive of the Labour party’s position regarding changing the age. However if we followed the same faulty logic you apply to Tertiary education funding this shouldn’t een be considered.

              As for mispelling your name my apologies but this is a blog comment and if spelling mistakes is of concern to you then you are going to be wasting a lot of your time trying to get these corrected.

              • mike e …
                31 July 2012 at 5:27 pm

                Goose last year you had go at me for being an uneducated idiot when I misspelt a couple of words however when I pointed out you had misspelt a few yourself
                you disappeared for several weeks.
                Don brashes productivity Commission reported back to your Nactuf govt that the single most important thing the country to improve productivity was to provide cheap housing so poor families can go to work and have enough money left over to provide for a stable family.
                OECD figures show we have some of the highest costs for housing families in the world,
                Also that keeping our children in poverty is a $6 billion a year cost to our economy.
                Making people pay to much for their education is going to make a Dumber economy!
                Obviously you want the economy and society built in your own image!
                Dumb and Dumber!

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 7:43 am

                  As usual you spout BS mike e. Unless you have evidence of me picking you apart on your spelling. I suspect not. Please be aware highlighting your ignorance about the difference between the EU and the Eurozone is not mere semantics about spelling if that is what you are referring to.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                31 July 2012 at 10:07 pm

                “You yourself have made noises about the costs of National Superannuation and seem to be supportive of the Labour party’s position regarding changing the age. However if we followed the same faulty logic you apply to Tertiary education funding this shouldn’t een be considered.”

                Indeed I do support raising the age of retirement, Gosman (with some provisos.)

                However – and please note – the rationale for raising the age of retirement has been carefully considered, using arguments that are difficult to counter.

                There was never such a rationale put forward for user pays in tertiary education except to cut state spending and fund tax-cuts for those very people who had benefitted from free tertiary education. People like Dear Leader and many of his cronies.

                For you to maintain that user-pays was introduced because “requiring Tertiary students to help fund part of their studies the main case is the cost of continuing the previous policy becomes higher due to changing demographics and/or behaviour from those taking advantage of the policy” is bunkum. That is rhetoric unsustained by any facts.

                Try again.

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 7:53 am

                  There are lots of arguments to support the view that Tertiary Students should make some sort of effort to pay for some of the cost of their education. ne of the arguments is why should people who don’t go to University subsidise those that do. It also tends to be a form of middle and upper class welfare.

            • prism 3.2.1.1.1.2
              31 July 2012 at 9:27 pm

              Frank Macskasy
              I understand that Gooseman is tolerated because he occasionally makes a good point. But to me he and PG are on a see saw – if one is down the other comes up and fills the gap. Arguing with the Goose man is a waste of time because he just wants to make statements critical to most of the bloggers here which he then repeats in different words.

              • felix …
                31 July 2012 at 9:54 pm

                I’m yet to see one of these points you mention. Usually just an endlessly dull game of changing the subject with no point at all.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                31 July 2012 at 10:16 pm

                Oh, I’m fairly aware of Gosman’s performances here, and on other fora, Prism.

                Part of his “style” is to demand answers to a whole host of questions – though it becomes evident he’s not in the slightest bit interested in facts. It can become tedious after a while…

                It’s amusing that he seems to have jumped onto this particular thread. I think he likes me. 😀

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 8:00 am

                  I provide shed load of facts Frank. I certainly back my opinions up with links when requested. You on the other hand seem to run for the hills when asked to back up your more wacky ideas such as your view that Chinese investment in Dairying will lead to higher milk prices in NZ.

                  Most of the time I enjoy pointing out the flaws in leftist logic such as in this case or when you got into that argument with the person on Tumeke about whether Jesus would have sanction Gay marriage. Your little rant about how her Religious beliefs were silly completely missed the point she was making which was there is plenty of evidence that Jesus supported the concept of a traditional marriage being between a man and a woman. Trouble is you are so high up on your horse you fail to notice these fundamental issues.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    1 August 2012 at 8:36 am

                    In that case, feel free to comment on the ISSUES raised here instead of focusing on ” flaws in leftist logic”.

                    Because so far, you’ve done precious little of that. Which is why I lost interest in your posts a while ago; you were more interested in point-scoring and meaningless mind-games rather than,

                    * growing child poverty
                    * a lack of decent housing in this country
                    * a desperate need to more state housing
                    * not vilifying unemployed, solo-mums (but never solo-dads), widowws, low-income workers, etc,

                    Your first post was an inane question was “Are people no longer able to get subsidised state housing?”.

                    When you open you discussion with that kind of sheer drivel, then we know you’re not taking this matter seriously.

                    As for my comments on another blog – focus on this one instead of flaying all over the place.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 8:57 am

                      No, I pointed out the basic flaw in the argument you continue to use against John Key and the National party policy decisions. Hopefully you will refrain from using this illogical argument in future.

                      Discussing those other matters is an entirely different matter. You obviously favour a more State interventionist approach, whereas others prefer to grow the productive sector to allow a surplus to spend on the less fortunate. The debate around this is called politics Frank and it isn’t as settled as you like to make out.

          • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.1.2
            31 July 2012 at 1:43 pm

            And by the way, Gosman, my surname is spelt Macskasy – not ‘Macasey’. C&P is your friend.

            • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.1.2.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:15 am

              “No, I pointed out the basic flaw in the argument you continue to use against John Key and the National party policy decisions.”

              No, you pointed out no such thing. You just pointed out more of your own “aren’t I clever” attitude. Fail.

              “You obviously favour a more State interventionist approach, whereas others prefer to grow the productive sector to allow a surplus to spend on the less fortunate”

              Ah, now you’re focusing.

              Why do you assume that a state interventionist approach is exclusive to spending on the less fortunate?

              New Zealand actually has a proud history of doing both; the state providing cheap housing or finance for housing; milk in schools; free education; free heathcare, dental nurses in our schools, etc. As a child I even recall free doctor’s visits – housecalls – when I was ill.

              We offered free tertiary education for our children and the deal was that they, the students, would pay it forward to the next generation through their taxes.

              Until our society, through misguided governments and a blind Middle Class broke that covenant. The consequences are now upon us.

              And at the same time, NZ was in trade surplus with our exports. Unemployment was measured in the dozens or hundreds. And there wasn’t a yawning gap in incomes/wealth that we now have.

              Gosman, we’ve had 30 years of your liberal economics and we still have high unemploymwent; a growing current account deficit; housing shortage, etc. How long before you accept that it’s not delivering?

              Your ideology is a failure. No amount of smart-aleck sneering from you changes that reality.

              Point out any socio-economic indicator that has improved for New Zealanders since the mid-1980s.

              • Gosman …
                1 August 2012 at 9:19 am

                NZ and the rest of the world is not the same society as it was pre 1980’s. We have a far more dynamic and open culture now than we did back then. You might like to turn back the clock to one which is White male dominated focusing on Rugby, Racing, and Beer culture. I don’t.

          • fender 3.2.1.1.3
            31 July 2012 at 1:53 pm

            Your inability to comprehend and to see the wider picture sums up the ignorance and lack of intelligence of many on the right. It’s a good thing you have your conscience hidden in a blind trust.

          • rosy 3.2.1.1.4
            31 July 2012 at 9:43 pm

            “The entire last sentence from Frank Macasey sums up the intellectual emptyness of ,many on the left. Not only do we still have subsidised state housing…”

            The only thing wrong with that last sentence is that Frank didn’t turn it into an essay so people like you, Gosman, would understand the difference between state housing in John Key’s youth and the state housing that is available now to some of the otherwise destitute.
            http://www.hnzc.co.nz/about-us/history-of-state-housing/

          • Vicky32 3.2.1.1.5
            1 August 2012 at 12:31 am

            Not only do we still have subsidised state housing but our Tertiary education sector is also heavily subsidised as well

            How do you make that out? Seriously?

            • Gosman 3.2.1.1.5.1
              1 August 2012 at 10:00 am

              See my comments and associated link below. Tertiary education is subsidsed by the State by the tune of 70% of the total cost per student.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                1 August 2012 at 10:02 am

                Can you answer the questions I’ve asked you, Gosman?

                You demand responses from everyone else, why don’t you reciprocate?

                I think the questions I’ve asked you are fairly simple. No research required.

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 10:34 am

                  Which question Frank? Was it the one regarding rosy’s asertion the John Key’s mother wouldn’t be eligble for a State House now? If so then I have given you my answer.

      • bbfloyd 3.2.2
        31 July 2012 at 1:17 pm

        @gossamer….Irrelevant, and obnoxious comment…. try harder to make adult noises next time…

      • Frank Macskasy 3.2.3
        31 July 2012 at 2:05 pm

        Gosman: “Are people no longer able to get subsidised state housing?”

        Short answer; no.

        Long answer: we have a massive housing shortage in New Zealand.

        Feel free to research this subject at some length, Gosman.

        • Gosman 3.2.3.1
          1 August 2012 at 9:07 am

          Since you think you have a handle on this topic Frank please advise me how the waiting list for State Houses has changed over the past 10 years. You do have that information don’t you Frank? It isn’t as if you are just spouting off on this topic without being fully versed with the facts of the matter I hope.

            • Gosman 3.2.3.1.1.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:29 am

              Are you deliberately avoiding answering my question? That link did not provide me with the detail I asked you about. Surely someone like you who is blogging about the waiting lists for State Houses and demanding the Government spend billions on a massive State House building programme knows how the waiting list has changed over the past decade.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                1 August 2012 at 9:44 am

                The link is there. Read the data. The fact you choose to ignore facts and figures is not my problem.

                As for “how the waiting list for State Houses has changed over the past 10 years” – what possible relevance does that have on 4,000+ waiting for a state house?

                You are so obssessed with pointless trivia.

                Why are you not more concerned with the here-and-now, Gosman? Is it because it is disturbing to pweople like you?

                Some time ago, you made a post about children on a protest march. You complained that it was unfair on children. You utterly ignore the fact that the protest directly affcted their wellbeing – but you didn’t concern yourself with that. You were more interested in using that situation to score a moral “point”.

                But no one took you seriously, because we know you are utterly unconcerned with the wellbeing of others. You are a typical free market individualist, Gosman. Which makes it so laughable when you feigned concern for children.

                You are a child of Ayn Rand, and I am thankful that you exist and post your garbage here, so we are reminded where your dgma would lead us.

          • rosy 3.2.3.1.2
            1 August 2012 at 9:24 am

            The thing is Gos, that fact is completely unrelated to Frank’s post. You’d need to compare the waiting list from about 40-45 years ago with the list now. And compare eligibility – which really is the point. John Key’s mother would not have got a state house now, You’re simply playing games.

            • Gosman 3.2.3.1.2.1
              1 August 2012 at 9:31 am

              Why wouldn’t John Key’s mother have got a State house now? Are you implying she would have been homeless?

              • rosy …
                1 August 2012 at 9:33 am

                🙄

              • bad12 …
                1 August 2012 at 9:40 am

                ( 🙄 )

              • Frank Macskasy …
                1 August 2012 at 9:44 am

                Why do you think she would?

                • Gosman …
                  1 August 2012 at 9:49 am

                  Do you have those statistics regarding the change in waiting lists Frank or are you simply wasting time trying to avoid dealing with the fact that you are blogging about a topic without fully researching and understanding it?

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:55 am

                    Not interested, Gosman.

                    But feel free to answer why you feel Key’s mother wouldn’t have been given a State house?

                    And why is historic data more important to you than hundreds of families on current State housing lists?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:05 am

                      The problem is Frank you have defined this issue as if ANYBODY on a waiting list is problematic. I have no idea if that is the case at all. Perhaps 4000 people on a waiting list is historically a standard number of people for such a waiting list. As you haven’t provided any data supporting your view that the 4000 people on the list is high by historical standards why whould I be overly concerned about this issue?

                      As for John Key’s mother and her eligibility for a State house, it was not I who made an asertion that she would be eligible for one now. This was rosy. She seemingly can’t back this statement up with any evidence. Take your concerns up with her.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:08 am

                      “As you haven’t provided any data supporting your view that the 4000 people on the list is high by historical standards why whould I be overly concerned about this issue?”

                      Oh my god.

                      You really do exhibit psychopathic tendencies.

                      That statement was as cold and callous as your remark on my blog that millions of unemployed was a necessary result of the GFC…

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:12 am

                      “The problem is Frank you have defined this issue as if ANYBODY on a waiting list is problematic.”

                      Incorrect. I haven’t defined anyone or anything.

                      I was quoting Housing NZ figures – which you obviously didn’t bother to check.

                      THAT, Gosman, is why I can’t be arsed spending time doing research for you. And it’s not the first time you wilfully chose to ignore data I looked up for you. You may get some kind of weird kick out of sending people off to do research for you, like a puppet, but not me.

                      Not when you ignore what I do give you.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:30 am

                      So why do yu think 4000 people on a waiting list for a State House is a terrible thing Frank? Unless you are comparing it to some other figure we can’t really quantify it at all. For example if the Waiting list was 8000 two years ago then 4000 is actually a positive figure in that it is coming down.

                  • rosy …
                    1 August 2012 at 10:08 am

                    This will answer your questions. It’s all there… I’ve checked.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:03 am

                      I have no idea whether she would or woiuldn’t qualify for a State house now and on top I think it is irrelevant to the discussion for the points I outlined originally in this discussion.

                      I have no idea whether she would or woiuldn’t qualify for a State house now and on top I think it is irrelevant to the discussion for the points I outlined originally in this discussion.

                      “I think it is irrelevant to the discussion…”?!

                      In which case, Gosman, why did you bring it up?

                      Why is is “irrelevant” now – but not “irrelevant” that you demanded answers from Rosie to your “irrelevant” questions?

                      It appears, Gosman that you can’t even answer questions based on points that YOU raise. Incredible.

                      And I repeat:

                      C’mon, Gosman, you must have an actual belief in this matter? Show some intellectual honesty for once and lay your cards on the table.

                      Or are you afraid that by voicing your own beliefs, that your views will be shredded to pieces as utter BS?

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    1 August 2012 at 10:15 am

                    As for John Key’s mother and her eligibility for a State house, it was not I who made an asertion that she would be eligible for one now. This was rosy. She seemingly can’t back this statement up with any evidence. Take your concerns up with her.

                    No, Gosman. You’re evading.

                    You made the following statement,

                    1 August 2012 at 9:31 am

                    Why wouldn’t John Key’s mother have got a State house now? Are you implying she would have been homeless?

                    Now, please tell us why you think Key’s mother WOULD have been eligible for a state house, and not been relegated to Category C or D on their waiting list.

                    Simple question, Gosman.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:28 am

                      No, Rosy made the statement. Trying to get me to answer it for her is just plain silly. She has basically admitted that she can’t back her view up. That is enough for me. Her statement is without factual basis at this stage.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:33 am

                      It was a simple question, Gosman.

                      But let me simplify it further for you; Why do you think Key;’s mum would’ve been in Category A of the State Housing List rather than B, C, or D?

                      You suggested in your reply that you couldn’t see why she would qualifity; “Why wouldn’t John Key’s mother have got a State house now? “.

                      I’m asking you why you think she would, as opposed to over 4,000 other people.

                      I think that’s a simple question. Are you unable to answer it?

                    • rosy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:35 am

                      Jeez Gosman, I lived in a state house around the same time Key did – half the country did! (exaggerating only marginally). You’re being ridiculous and if you’d bother to check Frank’s link you’d know she wouldn’t meet today’s eligibility criteria. And given the marginalised state of state housing she would probably not want it (which means she wouldn’t have met the criteria – circular reasoning – if you’re picky, you’re not desperate, if you’re not desperate you don’t meet the criteria). End of.

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:42 am

                      You haven’t explained why she wouldn’t meet the criteria. All I see is that in your , (quite obviously prejudicial), opinion she would fail to meet the criteria. I have no idea if she would or she wouldn’t. You seem to think she wouldn’t but don’t want to actually confirm whether your opinion is based on fact. Your choice but don’t expect people to just accept your opinion as valid without being challenged on it.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:52 am

                      @ Gosman,

                      All I see is that in your , (quite obviously prejudicial), opinion she would fail to meet the criteria. I have no idea if she would or she wouldn’t. You seem to think she wouldn’t but don’t want to actually confirm whether your opinion is based on fact.

                      Where did I state that “she would fail to meet the criteria” or that “seem to think she wouldn’t” qualify for State Housing? Where did I say that?

                      And if you “have no idea if she would or she wouldn’t” qualify, what was you point in asking “Why wouldn’t John Key’s mother have got a State house now? Are you implying she would have been homeless?”

                      Do you think Rosy was wrong in her assessments?

                      C’mon, Gosman, you must have an actual belief in this matter? Show some intellectual honesty for once and lay your cards on the table.

                      Or are you afraid that by voicing your own beliefs, that your views will be shredded to pieces as utter BS?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 10:59 am

                      I have no idea whether she would or woiuldn’t qualify for a State house now. On top I think it is irrelevant to the discussion for the reasons I outlined originally in this discussion.

                      What benefits someone had 30 to 40 odd years ago should not colour the argument over whether these same benefits should still be applied at the same level today.

                      By all means argue the merits of your case based on today’s reality but it is an illogical argument to state that what we had in the past should somehow always be what we have now.

                    • rosy …
                      1 August 2012 at 11:03 am

                      Here’s an idea Gosman – seeing as you’re not into checking links… phone HCNZ and tell them your husband has just died, you’ve got 2 or 3 kids of school age (I can’t recall if Key has 2 siblings or one), you work part-time, you’re in good health (so are your children) and have a few assets. And no you don’t live in over-crowded conditions or in a car, and you really want to move for family support (seeing as your husband has just died).

                      Let me know how you get on.

        • prism 3.2.3.2
          1 August 2012 at 9:19 am

          Frank Macskasy
          Do you think that it would be best to give Gosman the icon answer to match the worth of his thinking? Honouring his testy questions to which he wants replies to troll through for the next inane question and so on, is a waste of your time. People like him are psychologically warped to find pleasure in disagreeing with other people’s ideas. They have time to indulge their interests in a version of an on-line game with real people’s scenarios expressed in words.

  4. Tracey 4
    31 July 2012 at 11:45 am

    Bear in mind that the PM can pull this off with a straight face because the industry he careered in has, generally, ethics driven by one thing, profit. Accordingly he probably believes much of what he says because his moral compass has been skewed from 30 years in a business area with little or no moral compass.

  5. Dv 5
    31 July 2012 at 12:02 pm

    “If one budgets one can pay its bills”

    SO how come the Nats have borrowed billions!!

    • Matthew 5.1
      31 July 2012 at 12:10 pm

      poor choices, obviously

      • alwyn 5.1.1
        31 July 2012 at 1:27 pm

        Very poor choices in some cases.
        Keeping WFF going for families on over $100,000/annum
        Keeping interest free student loans.
        Pouring more money into the 19th century technology which is the railways.
        Yes, very poor choices.

        • Frank Macskasy 5.1.1.1
          31 July 2012 at 2:02 pm

          Alwyn,

          Those “poor choices” resulted from failed neo-lib, free market policies;

          “Keeping WFF going for families on over $100,000/annum”

          After so much user-pays and higher government charges introduced, WFF was Labour’s tagetted tax cuts for families.

          Just as National cut taxes in 2009 and 2010 – leaving a gaping hole in the government’s budget.

          “Keeping interest free student loans.”

          We have student loans and debts because tertiary education is now (mostly) user-pays. We once had free tertiary education, which John Key himself benefitted from.

          Just as we once had a Training Incentive Allowance, which Paula Bennett benefitted from.

          “Pouring more money into the 19th century technology which is the railways.”

          And yet, our Japanese cuzzies have high-speed bullet-trains and China is inventing billions in high speed rail.

          If you’re going to call rail “19th century technology” – does the same apply to automobiles, also a relic from the 19th century?

          • Gosman 5.1.1.1.1
            31 July 2012 at 3:17 pm

            It is incorrect to state that Tertiary education is mostly user pays. The State still subsidises the vast majority of the total cost of Tertiary education for students (around 70%). Nice bit of spin their though Frank.

            http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/tertiary_education/31473/4

            • Frank Macskasy 5.1.1.1.1.1
              31 July 2012 at 10:11 pm

              Congratulations; I was wondering when you’d notice.. When you focus on the ISSUES, instead of your ego-games, is when you can pick up on points like that. On a previous occassion you didn’t even *click* when I referred to the wrong Prime Minister.

              It’s called staying focused.

              • Gosman …
                1 August 2012 at 9:21 am

                This was posted yesterday Frank. It’s taken you this long to notice it. In fact your posts about me not addressing the issue was made AFTER I posted this.

                BTW are you going to address the point I made or run away like you usually do?

                  • bad12 …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:27 am

                    here borrow mine, 🙄

                  • Gosman …
                    1 August 2012 at 9:34 am

                    So that would be a no then.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:35 am

                      No, you twit, that would be a Stay Focused on ISSUES!! Oh gawd, no wonder your precious ACT Party polls less than 1%…

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:40 am

                      It is you who seem to be failing to stay on issue Frank. Where is the evidence that waiting lists for State houses has increased dramatically over the past decade or so? Surely you have this information. You aren’t just blogging about this topic without having fully researched it now are you?

                    • bad12 …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:48 am

                      = 🙄

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:48 am

                      “It is you who seem to be failing to stay on issue Frank. Where is the evidence that waiting lists for State houses has increased dramatically over the past decade or so? Surely you have this information.”

                      And why is it, Gosman, that that is more important to you than 4,000-plus people waiting for a state hiouse now?

                      If you want the data, find it. Don’t be so bloody lazy. I’m not going to waste time doing your research only dfor you to dismiss it; ignore it; or ask more pointless questions.

                      But I’m still curious as to why a historic waiting list is more important to you rather than 4,000+ peoples – families – on waiting lists right now?

                      Are you so disjointed from your felliow man and woman that historic stats matter more than the present?

                      Are you, Gosman?

                    • Gosman …
                      1 August 2012 at 9:51 am

                      So that would be a big fat – No then. If you want to be taken seriously in your blogging you really should spend more time researching the topic.

                  • mike e …
                    6 August 2012 at 10:04 pm

                    goose you provide all the research we need by shooting youself in the foot with your own links save hours thanks goose.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.2
          31 July 2012 at 2:13 pm

          Pouring more money into the 19th century technology which is the railways.

          Railways are going to be used long after the rest is gone mate. Don’t push the country into a logistical dead end because of your ignorance please.

        • mike e 5.1.1.3
          31 July 2012 at 5:35 pm

          Alwyn During that time we actually caught up with Australia for the first time in thirty years the economy grew by more than 1%.
          Boris Johnston and your other Tory morons have put nearly 100billion pounds into rail and just about cut out all motorway construction.
          Yes poor argument Alwymp.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.4
          31 July 2012 at 5:39 pm

          Pouring more money into the 19th century technology which is the railways.

          Have you ever considered the reason why rail came before cars? It’s relatively simple – it’s cheaper and far more efficient.

          • mike e 5.1.1.4.1
            1 August 2012 at 11:15 am

            60 times cheaper per person moved thats the way I like My out of date technology.
            Boris Johnston has more brains than all the right whingers in this country.

  6. fender 6
    31 July 2012 at 12:52 pm

    John Key is the Mitt Romney of NZ. We don’t need him and his low intelligence style, and like my late grandmother would warn: don’t trust him, his eyes are too close together.

    • seeker 6.1
      31 July 2012 at 1:44 pm

      Talking about Mitt Romney. A large front page headline in a British tabloid aptly blazed”Mitt the Twit” last Saturday. Could we have similar with”John the Con” ?

  7. bad12 7
    31 July 2012 at 1:10 pm

    I whole-heartedly agree with Slippery the Prime Minister, that we have an uncounted number of beneficiaries and their children living in Poverty is in fact the result of poor choices,

    The poor choice of having as Government those who have instituted the economic policies of Neo-Liberalism,

    The poor choice of that Government that applied income tax to welfare benefits,

    The poor choice of the next Government not to remove that taxation from welfare benefits,

    The poor choice of a later Governments to cut those welfare benefits by 20 dollars,

    The poor choice of the next Government to not restore those welfare benefits back to their previous level,

    The poor choice of a later Government to not include the children of beneficiaries in the Working for Families tax credit scheme,

    And last but hardly least,

    The poor choice of the present Slippery National Government to apply a higher rate of GST to the economy thereby increasing as a % of earnings the taxation on beneficiaries AND rack-raising the excise tax upon tobacco products which effects beneficiaries at a higher % than the rest of the community thus becoming benefit cutting by stealth by this Government,

    Gee, looks like i just out-lined a blue-print of how to drive a particular income group into poverty and keep them there,

    Slippery, the present Prime Min ister should be hanging His head in shame at the part He and His Government have played in this impoverishment but Labour are hardly knights in shining armor when their actions in such impoverishment are viewed through the lens of history…

    • Macro 7.1
      6 August 2012 at 7:50 pm

      Sad but true.
      A succession of governments in this country have completely abrogated the responsibility to which the were duly elected. The protection and welfare of the most vulnerable.

  8. fabregas4 8
    31 July 2012 at 5:18 pm

    We have a NZ housing home near my school. It has been empty for two months whilst we also have a whole lot of people living in very poor housing with kids with asthma etc. But I’m sure its their fault – if only those kids could breathe better.

  9. lprent 9
    6 August 2012 at 6:29 pm

    This post has had a lot of interest – 10,437 views of which 1867 have been from today – almost a week after the post went up. Comments stopped about 5 days ago.

    I guess that it is on someone’s mailing list as it isn’t obvious from ten referrals where people are coming in from and it is a wide range of reasonably local IP’s

    Take a bow Frank…

    • bad12 9.1
      6 August 2012 at 6:38 pm

      That’s interesting alright, do you have an average of how many page views the average post receives,

      Perhaps the subject has become topical as a school subject somewhere???…

    • Frank Macskasy 9.2
      6 August 2012 at 7:27 pm

      Awwww, thanks, Lprent…

      I know there are a couple of people who spread links far and wide, especially on Twitter.

      Funny thing… we recently purchased a copy of Bryan Bruce’s doco, “Inside Child Poverty”, and lent it to some family. She is a Labour voter, He is a Nat voter. When we got the dvd back, He and I had a chat. Upshot, I think the Nats have just lost a vote…

      So the word is spreading, albeit slowly.

      • weka 9.2.1
        6 August 2012 at 8:41 pm

        Those stats are very cool. I think it’s a good post in terms of readability and getting the point across easily for people that might not otherwise be bothered, but there is more to read if people want to. Well done Frank.

  10. captain hook 10
    6 August 2012 at 7:57 pm

    go Frank.
    looks like you got the weasel in your sights.
    +2