Government waste

16 comments on “Government waste ”

• Comments are now closed

1. JakeQuinn 1

   29 May 2009 at 4:38 pm

   Isn’t your argument predicated on the fact that “urgency doesn’t cost much”?
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     30 May 2009 at 12:44 am

     Urgency in parliament costs more than we know because the full costs, especially under NACT, are hidden or not even known.
2. Daveski 2

   29 May 2009 at 4:50 pm

   Correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the urgency would have been needed to get the 1 April 2009 tax cuts approved so there’s no marginal cost?? The budget must be a lot better than I gave it credit for if this is a credible line of attack.
3. calltoaccount 3

   29 May 2009 at 5:00 pm

   I think the point is the Nats (can’t bring myself to say the word ‘Government’) shouldn’t be wasting our time making promises they can’t keep. As Goff is saying:
   “Despite warnings about the worst financial situation since the 1930s being on the horizon, John Key and Bill English, hell bent on buying the election, promised New Zealanders tax cuts they knew they couldn’t afford.”
4. Ed 4

   29 May 2009 at 5:51 pm

   “In December last year, National forced Parliament to sit in urgency to pass its tax cuts.

   Today, it’s forcing Parliament to sit in urgency to repeal those same tax cuts.”

   Sadly they are not repeal those same tax cuts – they are leaving the tax cuts that gave a huge proportion of higher take-home pay to the very wealthiest in the community. If National really believed that worsening conditions made it necessary for us to all pull in our belts and make sacrifices they would have reversed the April 2009 cuts as well.

   To ignore the biassed and unfair tax cuts that the Nats always knew were dubious at best, and pretend that the Nats are reversing what they did in December is playing into the Mat-spin that seems to have fooled the media.

   Yes National promised tax cuts that they knew could not be afforded, but they are keeping the cut int he top tax rate that provides least benefit to New Zealand, but most benefit to their MPs and their supporters.
   • gargle 4.1

     29 May 2009 at 6:07 pm

     A horse is a horse of course of course unless that horse is a trotskyite git.
     • calltoaccount 4.1.1

       29 May 2009 at 6:12 pm

       brokenpromisessupercityguttedsuperandkiwisaverfundsnottaxcutschristinerankinmelissaleecrapnatsstayontopic
5. lprent 5

   29 May 2009 at 6:58 pm

   Perhaps they could have saved time and resources by not bothering to promise what was clearly undeliverable last year during the election campaign.

   But National always over promises and cannot deliver. It is their trademark
6. cheeky dutchy 6

   29 May 2009 at 7:43 pm

   Yeah but the top 10% got their tax cuts alright. Gee how convenient, we’ll use the recession to deny average earners their tax cut.

   More like “promises that never intended to deliver”
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     30 May 2009 at 12:47 am

     Far closer to the truth I believe. Unfortunate;y, belief doesn’t constitute fact.
7. mike 7

   29 May 2009 at 7:56 pm

   So Labour wouldn’t have cancelled them – what’s your point?

   The world changed completely between the election and present day, what we are witnessing is a government that can shift with the times not like labour with it’s idealogical head so far up it’s own arse that it can’t change tac
   • QoT 7.1

     29 May 2009 at 11:05 pm

     The point is that Labour didn’t promise tax cuts that it was blindingly obvious would be rendered impractical by the recession, mike. So they would have had nothing to repeal.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.2

     30 May 2009 at 12:50 am

     Another delusional RWNJ. Labour had made some tax cuts but had started to say that the next round most likely wouldn’t go ahead. National said their tax cuts until 2011 were set in stone.

     ie, Labour were already starting to adapt to the new situation before the election but NACT weren’t.
8. cheeky dutchy 8

   29 May 2009 at 8:00 pm

   They new all along mate, the “world did not completely change” Just look at the global forecasts – even my cat has. (Tommy – he has died though)

   Labour would have definitely canceled tax cuts. too right. Invest in jobs. cancel the first round of cuts too – take my $10 a week for all I care; invest in those who need it
9. John Dalley 9

   29 May 2009 at 11:34 pm

   In answer to Mike,
   Cullen would never have given tax cuts if National for the last few years had not been promising tax cuts that they fully new where not sustainable.
   Remember National complaining about all the money Cullen was hording and they where going to give use all these tax cuts.
   Unless Bill English is as th9ick as Pig Shit, he has known for more that 12 months that this recession was coming, granted may be not as big as it is but never the less if he had half a brain and was reading the projections that where being presented two years ago he new this was going to happen.
   No tax cuts should have been promised as they where never sustainable. They where only promised as an election bribe because National wwas so desperate to get into power that they would promise anything with the full knowledge that they would never keep that promise.
10. starboard 10

    30 May 2009 at 11:08 am

    “National wwas so desperate to get into power that they would promise anything with the full knowledge that they would never keep that promise.”

    ..thats rich…pot , meet kettle…

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS